Sorry Republicans, It’s No Mandate

by lewwaters

Trump Flip OffAs we all know by now, acerbic Donald Trump came out ahead over Hillary Clinton to next occupy the office of the president. The win comes as no real surprise as one of the two was going to win and both were poor candidates, not what we need to heal our divided country.

Seeing now how the GOP claims to have a mandate and big win is most laughable as once again, we see the presidency won by electoral vote while coming in second in the popular vote.

I have no problem with that as that is the system our founders established. I do disagree with the ‘winner take all’ of 48 of our 50 states and believe each congressional district should have electors voting as did their district. But that is in the hands of the legislatures of each state.

Both the country and Republican Party remains bitterly divided and denying Trump the wholesale approval of his policy agenda he so often expressed on the campaign trail.

And while Republicans retained control of both the House and Senate, Democrats still have the filibuster as well as some strong, deeply entrenched politicians in office as well as Trump eagerly trashed several top Republicans during the campaign that also remain in office.

We’ll see how that works out over the next four years as this is not a reality TV show where Trump gets to just fire people he disagrees with.

We also must consider that Trump so far has amassed 59,704,886 votes. That is lower that Romney’s loss in 2012 with 60,933,504 votes and McCain’s loss in 2008 with 59,948,323 votes.

While Trump’s number may very well increase in the coming days as more straggling ballots come in and are counted, it is clear that many of the American people are not as supportive or embracing of Donald Trump’s agenda as being claimed.

Trump made a lot of claims and promises over the last year that should he moderate on, the fringe base he assembled will not be very happy.

But if he doesn’t moderate he will find he receives little cooperation from democrats or Republicans in Congress with more moderate views.

Both he and certain gas bags supporting him that believe it’s “a cold-blooded, mentally violent business” fail to realize the country was founded from the middle, compromise for what is best for all. We never have been an all or nothing nation and efforts of making us such has only served to bitterly divide us.

And, a house divided cannot stand.

So, while those gas bags and hotheads are gleefully looking forward to a wave of Trump’s magic wand to undo everything they disagree with, ultimately I doubt we will see a whole lot of changes coming.

They forget, as they fitfully try to compare Trump to Ronald Reagan, the latter realized early on the absolute must of compromise in governance as he said;

“When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it. ‘Compromise’ was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.”

Trump made some pretty tall claims of what he intends to do as president that some of his most ardent brown shirt’s bought into.

He may soon come to realize it won’t be like on a TV show and is much more difficult that he expected.

He got the gig, so we will all see how he handles it.

===================================================

You can help a Vietnam Veteran fulfill a wish, Click Here

6 Comments to “Sorry Republicans, It’s No Mandate”

  1. Well said Lew. I think Republicans only need to be reminded of what the Senator from Kentucky said after Obama’s first election to office. I certainly don’t want the Democrats doing what he, McConnell did for eight years.

    Like

  2. They all seem to be striking a conciliatory tone early on, we’ll see if it holds.

    I did notice Trump sidestepped a question today on banning Muslim immigrants.

    Like

  3. This election gave us the problem of selecting the lessor of two evils. In the case of Hillary, we have a felon who should not ever be given a security clearance at any level ever again. Note: I had a security clearance while I was an employee of a civilian contractor working at a Federal agency. Not only was I responsible for proper handling any classified materials I might receive — I was also given the “secrets safe” and was the responsible person to ensure that all classified materials delivered were checked in and out and were fully accounted for in our Division. (I managed a function that “reported” to 3 branch chiefs and a division chief.) I received a security briefing regarding my responsibilities … and a member of the security staff came by each month to check the Secret Safe Log and ensure that no more and no fewer than the logged items were in the safe. If I’d had any failure, I would certainly be fired — and would run a substantial chance of being charged with security crimes and likely would be imprisoned, should there have been any failures on my part. Mrs. Clinton violated more security/secrecy laws that I can count, and she gets off with being given a pass. I would not have been given a pass at all. There is no way that Mrs. Clinton was qualified to be President (or Secretary of State). Her malfeasance in office caused good people to be killed.

    As for Mr. Trump. I’m not surprised by his victory. The dishonest “main stream media” was “in bed” with Mrs. Clinton and (per the many leaked emails) were colluding with her campaign to do their best to smear him– just as they did with Mr. Romney (something about a dog in a carrier tied on the roof of a car???) and Mr. McCain previously (I forget the smears against McCain… but there are always something.) The Democratic Party and the Clintons have long used the tactic of personal destruction while working their politics.

    Frankly, there were several GOP candidates that I’d have preferred over Mr. Trump … and if the choice for President was not, essentially, a binary choice (one major candidate or the other), I could not in good conscience vote for one of the minor party candidates (on the unlikely possibility that Trump might have won in Washington) since my vote might have been more important for one of the two likely winners of the election.

    As for the Electoral College, the “winner take all” method was originally established by the founders. It has mostly served us well, though there has been a lot of carping (from the losing side) about the “unfairness” of the system. However, the United States Constitution was not designed to create a “democracy” but rather a “republic.” The danger of a democracy is that it almost always will create a tyranny by the majority after some period of time. Our founders understood this. If the Electoral College was discarded (making voters vote directly for the President) or if it was set up to be by congressional district, that would make it very difficult to have clear-cut winners in the presidential contest. It also establishes the ability to truly “rig” an election, as certain types of corruption might allow a popular count to be very close, allowing “finding” uncounted ballots during a recount or other manipulations. At present, such cheating (which likely occurs more often than you might think) only effects the outcome in one or two states with a very close count. (Doubt that it occurs? There were considerable questions about the recounts that put Al Franken in the senate over Norm Coleman in 2008… and many other examples can be found.)

    A related “progressive” constitutional change was the 17th amendment making the Senators directly elected by each state’s electors, rather they by approval of the state’s legislature. This seriously changed the relationship of the states to the Federal Government, eliminating the representation of the STATE’s interest and changing Senators as being directly responsible to the voters … and leaving plenty of opportunities for influence peddling, etc. The secondary aspect of the 17th amendment is that it turned the states into simply “subdivisions” of the Federal Government, with very little power to influence national agendas. (I realize that it is unlikely that the 17th amendment will be repealed, though it should be to re-establish the proper relationship between the states and the central government.)

    Like

  4. As far as I was concerned, the election gave us two equal evils. That is why I supported neither of them.

    But, Trump won and it’s his now.

    Time will tell how or what he actually does.

    As for winner take all, FairVote.org claims differently How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All

    Not being argumentative, but I do believe eliminating the winner take all and allowing each congressional district to cast electoral votes as do voters within the district would better represent voters.

    Like

  5. Thank you Lew and Friends of John Galt for the tutelege? I come to understand that the 538 electors are elected by the majority vote in the state of Washington. meaning each state gets to vote in how they want to elect the electoral college and in washington state is different than any other state.

    Could I be wrong?

    Like

%d bloggers like this: