Stay-aways gave the election away

We really should pay attention to the stay-aways who might have given the election away.  Were there more “Democrats” who stayed away because Hilary Clinton was not the best possible candidate, or were there more “Republicans” who stayed because Donald Trump was the worst possible candidate?

My comment to  “Trump King of Chaos” at  http://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/opinion/trump-king-of-chaos.html?comments#permid=26207463:26212200.

Also scroll down for “Quote of the day” to
“Remember no drama Obama---how I long for those days.”
ACJ, Chicago
2018-03-05

Russian collusion and Donald Trump

If you have a few hours free, read the Washington Post’s long article on Donald Trump and the Russians.

If you still have time read all the comments.  This is a bit more time consuming because the Washington Post allows instant commenting.  It’s great to have instant posting rather than waiting hours for arbiters to approve comments, but some people criticize others over and over again, often with insult rather than insight.

Third Party candidates, another false equivalency

A Los Angeles Times article on the death of John Anderson blames his candidacy for Jimmy Carter’s loss in the 1980 Presidential Election.

These articles rarely, if ever, blame the losing major party candidates for the loss.  A more thorough analysis would include the turnout.  How many Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Hilary Clinton lukewarm supporters stayed away?  I think poor turnout has far more to do with a major party candidate’s loss than anything else.

The Woman Who Cost Clinton the Election

See “The Men Who Cost Clinton the Election”, Jill Filipovic, New York Times, 2017-12-01.

Jill Filipovic wrote an interesting column about the bad treatment that Hilary Clinton got from several male interviewers.  I don’t watch TV and so I don’t know the details, but I believe she is right about their bias towards Clinton and their misplaced bias in favor of Trump.

However, in many ways Clinton was her own worst enemy.  Many felt she had a sense of entitlement to the presidency.  I can think of several women who would have made better candidates: Elizabeth Warren (who supposedly decided against it), Amy Klobuchar, Kathleen Sebelius, and many others others who are already prominent in politics.

I would have gladly voted for any of them over Clinton.  However, given that her opponent was Donald Trump, I reluctantly voted for her.

Unfortunately, too many others who thought that she was not the best possible candidate stayed away and gave the election to the worst possible candidate.

Remember, the only way you throw your vote away is to stay away.

Staying home changes nothing, you must vote for change

“The real change will come when those who felt compelled to stand on principle and not participate in an election in which they felt they were being forced to choose between “the lesser of two evils” realize the staggering magnitude of the gap between those ‘two evils.’”
“Soul Survival in Trump’s Hell”, Charles Blow, New York Times, 2017-09-11.

Denying Donald

Yes, the title has three meanings.

The first was inspired by all the denials of the Trumpistas of facts, like the size of the Women's March vs. the size of the Inaugural crowd.

The second is a play on Trump's still ranting about "Lying Hilary”.

The third is that we should do all we can to deny the legitimacy of Trump's election.

For more on comparison of the crowds at Trumps inauguration and the Women’s March, see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/president-trump-inauguration-crowd-white-house.html

Denying Donald said that the rain stopped as soon as he started speaking.  According to the NYT the rain continued throughout Trump's speech.  Could this be a message from God expressing disapproval of Trump as President?

Not really, if Clinton had won, she would have had the same weather.  “Conservative” “Christians” would have been certain the rain meant God’s disapproval of her.  Liberal Christians would say “The rain falls on the just and unjust alike."

Remember the perspective, Trump came in third to a de facto "None of the Above”. One would think he would have a bit of humility.  Too many people liked Trump even less than Clinton and stayed away, thus giving the election to Trump.

Politics as game show

Maybe our problem is that the "debates" are not real debates like Lincoln-Douglas but game shows. And Trump understands this, but serious politicians don't.

My comment to Frank Bruni's "Trump's Ideology of Applause".

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/opinion/sunday/donald-trumps-ideology-of-applause.html?comments&_r=0#permid=19756890

I GO POGO!

Do you oldsters remember when Walt Kelly countered “I Like Ike” (Dwight D. Eisenhower’s slogan) with “I Go Pogo”.

Migosh, Eisenhower was a decent guy and the last decent Republican President.

I figure my only possible vote is for Hilary Clinton, even though I dislike dynasty politics and I figure there are many better possible candidates.

However, what if those of you who feel differently were to write in Pogo?  Would a couple hundred thousand votes for Pogo send a strong message to the politicians?  Remember that Pogo also said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Elections are not won!

They are given away!

Today’s Star Tribune had a good example of this in an article about the 3rd Congressional District of Minnesota  It was a chart in the printed edition showing voting results for the last 4 biennial elections.  it is a tally of percentage votes for president, Congress, statehouse, and governor.  The percentage of Democratic votes is up in Presidential election years and down in off-years.

What would the elections been like if all those stay-away Democrats had shown up?  They certainly helped Republicans win.

The only way
To throw your vote away
Is to stay away.

If you don’t show up because you don’t like Hilary Clinton, you might help elect Donald Trump.  Just like the stay-aways in Florida helped elect George Bush in 2000.

O ye of little faith!

Someone in the U.S. posted a video uncomplimentary of Mohammed.  Some Muslims in Libya attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of the U.S. Ambassador and three other U.S. diplomats.  Now demonstrations and attacks by some Muslims on American interests are happening all around the world where there are a large number of Muslims.  Is this the way to promote Islam as a religion of peace?

The idea of Islam as a religion of peace is something that many American Muslims believe and need in order to be part of their communities.  Unfortunately, attacks like those above work against American Muslims.  Why?  Because there are too many non-Muslim Americans who believe that ALL Muslims are terrorists.  Consider the uproar being made by Rep. Michele Bachmann about U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton having a Muslim aide, Huma Abedin.

When I was a kid a counter to those who called others by derogatory names was "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names cannot hurt me!"  Some Muslims are letting derogatory names hurt them and are breaking other people's bones.

"Allah akbar!  God is great!" shout those demonstrating against the uncomplimentary video.  Do you think a great God would worry about the callous remarks of a petty criminal?  If a great God were concerned with such remarks, wouldn't He do something about it?  If God is not doing anything about some stupid remarks, should you?  There is an old Greek word for the sin of knowing better than the gods - hubris, a form of misplaced pride and conceit.

Before some non-Muslims have their own bit of hubris and conceit about their own religion's tolerance, consider some Christian history.  Early Christian leaders had some really heated debates about what Christianity should be, and many of them branded those who disagreed with them as heretics.  For too many years, the Roman Church with the blessing of monarchs tortured and executed those who they suspected of not being devout Christians.  The Puritans in Massachusetts hung Quakers for preaching in public.  The Ku Klux Klan used the symbols of Christianity and terrorized and murdered blacks for a long list of crimes real and imagined.

The world is getting smaller and more crowded.  If we can't learn to have some tolerance for each other, no god is going to save us from destroying ourselves.

For a good analysis of the larger picture of the long-standing conflict, see "A Dangerous Misperception and Cultural Divide", Alon Ben-Meir, Huffington Post, 2012-09-17.

Following Michele Bachmann's reasoning about ancestry leads us to...

Michele Bachmann claims that an aide of Hilary Clinton, Huma Abedin, may have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.  I'll let you try to follow this path with

"McCain defends Clinton aide against allegations", Associated Press, Donna Cassata, 2012-07-18  and other sites
"Michele Bachmann Lies About Her Own Family History To Sound More Iowan", Chris Rodda, Dispatches from the Creation Wars

I guarantee if you are not a lawyer or a historian, your mind will be boggled by all the twists and turns.

However, using her own reasoning, how can we be sure she didn't support the German Occupation of Norway?  After all, Quisling was a Norwegian.   And when you go back seven generations in a country the size of Norway, just about everybody is a cousin at that many levels.

Her last name is Bachmann, a German name.  How do we know her husband is not a cousin at some level to officials of the Nazi Party?  For example, Christian Bachmann, a major in the Waffen SS, or Erich Bachmann, a lieutenant in the Waffen SS.

Many have accused Bachmann about being a neo-Nazi.  That is a bit of a stretch, and even if true, I doubt that her current beliefs come from her ancestry or family relations.  She was probably shaped by the current version of the Republican Party as much as she is trying to shape the Party.

Oh, wait a minute!  George Seldes in the "The Great Quotations" gave a couple of quotes from Adolph Hitler about business.  Since those quotes seem to parallel Michele Bachmann's thinking, she must be a Nazi.  But I can't find my copy of "The Great Quotations".  Besides, I saw some indications on the Web that Seldes wasn't always accurate in his quotations.

The moral: it is bad thinking to put too much into a single quote and it is bad thinking to write too much about a simple idea.