Balkinization  

Monday, October 17, 2016

Cheer Up

Gerard N. Magliocca

With respect, all of the gloom and doom surrounding the campaign is starting to sound like the melodrama that you hear on "The Real Housewives of [Wherever]."  I would therefore like to make some contrarian positive (or contextual) observations.

First, in a post months ago I said that I was confident that there was not a national majority in favor of Donald Trump. In three weeks, that prediction will be borne out by the largest presidential landslide for a Democrat since 1964.

Second, the notion that past presidential elections were always conducted under "Gentlemen's Rules" where the loser graciously conceded is a fantasy. John Adams refused to attend Thomas Jefferson's inauguration in 1801. Andrew Jackson attacked John Quincy's Adams' election in 1824 as the product of a "Corrupt Bargain" and spent the next four years doing his best to undercut the President. In 1828, Adams and Jackson waged what is often described as the nastiest presidential campaign ever, with Adams refusing to attend Jackson's Inaugural.  In 1860 an entire section of the country banned Lincoln from the ballot and refused to recognize his election.  And so on.

Third, there are other presidential elections where the candidate conceded graciously but many of his supporters felt cheated.  How about 2000?  How about 1960?  You get the idea.

Perhaps the best expression of my feelings comes from Franklin Roosevelt's Fourth Inaugural Address. This is not famous like his first ("We have nothing to fear but fear itself") or the second ("I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished")  But consider after you hear it how much greater the problems of 1945 were than our problems, and that the man giving the speech was dying.

Here is the link to an audio version.


Comments:

Appreciate the effort though not sure about some of the details here.
 

I recall a civil war following Lincoln's election.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Gerard: First, in a post months ago I said that I was confident that there was not a national majority in favor of Donald Trump. In three weeks, that prediction will be borne out by the largest presidential landslide for a Democrat since 1964.

Landslide?

If the current average of the wildly divergent polls holds, 2016 will look much like 1992 - a plurality Clinton win against a divided field.

Whichever way this election goes between the felon and the fascist, the nation loses in a landslide.

Cheers!
 

I agree, it's somewhat dubious to characterize as a "landslide" an election in which it seems likely the winner will be lucky to reach 50% of the vote.
 

A cite of the blog post with more riffing.

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2016/10/disenfranchisement-and-electoral-losers.html
 

By the way, I'd like to point out that, for about 43% of the population, Hillary winning is decidedly NOT a cheerful prospect.

I suspect it's not a cheerful prospect even for a lot of people who will be voting for her.

Both parties need serious reform to avoid another election like this. I think one of them is in denial about that need, though.
 

I would not think Republicans and Republican leaning voters in particular would be "cheerful" as such but figure many of them will be relieved that someone who many Republicans respect on a basic competence etc. level won over Trump. When a Republican President wins that is fairly competent even though I don't like his or her positions in various cases, I too will be relieved now given the possibilities.

I figure even without "serious reform" that 2020 won't quite be like this "black swan" election since it took various things to occur in a perfect storm way to get us here. Figure Republicans probably can find someone with a long career in public service, well qualified, respected by many on the other side etc.
 

"I'd like to point out that, for about 43% of the population"

Let's be clear, 43% of the voting population, which isn't the same as the population (or even voting age population). Millions will not vote and millions can not.
 

"characterize as a "landslide" an election in which it seems likely the winner will be lucky to reach 50% of the vote"

An electoral college landslide can occur under that condition. I don't think we'll see it here, but I think any double digit victory would constitute a landslide.
 

Wilson got 435 electoral votes in 1912, despite winning less than 42% of the vote. His winning margin was 14.45%.
 

Joe: I would not think Republicans and Republican leaning voters in particular would be "cheerful" as such but figure many of them will be relieved that someone who many Republicans respect on a basic competence etc. level won over Trump.

You are kidding, right?

Republicans almost universally consider Clinton to be a lying, corrupt felon, who will continue Obama's unconstitutional rule by decree and will turn the Supreme Court into a leftist super legislature.

Unlike Democrats, we do not consider lawlessness and lying to be resume enhancers for a presidential candidate.
 

If I was kidding, I would say something like: "A rabbi, a priest and a minister walk into a bar..."

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I have own car so now I am back out there trying to show him how to do car repairs. Your blog is an excellent source of info, thanks.

bike spa services in mumbai
house cleaning services in mumbai
car wash services in mumbai

 

The latest Wikileaks email dump breaks down how the Clinton, Inc. shakedown operation works. Even the Democrat media is covering this corruption now:

https://youtu.be/Or0WYLnQ1BE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bill-clinton-inc-hacked-memo-reveals-intersection-of-charity-and-personal-income/2016/10/26/3bf84bba-9b92-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html?postshare=2411477576417942&tid=ss_fb

Tell me again how any of you can justify casting a ballot for a leader of this criminal enterprise???

Cheers!
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home