Showing posts with label Politics-USA Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics-USA Clinton. Show all posts

December 21, 2016

It is Official Hillary Tranced Trump on Pop Vote







[CNN]
More Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than any other losing presidential candidate in US history.

The Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Clinton's 2.1% margin ranks third among defeated candidates, according to statistics from US Elections Atlas. Andrew Jackson won by more than 10% in 1824 but was denied the presidency, which went to John Quincy Adams. In 1876, Samuel Tilden received 3% more votes than Rutherford B. Hayes, who eventually triumphed by one electoral vote.

Though the legitimacy of his victory has never come into serious doubt, Trump has repeatedly argued, usually via Twitter, that he would have won the popular vote, too, if that had been his focus.
"I would have done even better in the election, if that is possible, if the winner was based on popular vote -- but would campaign differently," he tweeted as recently as Wednesday morning, more than six weeks after the election. In late November, Trump also falsely claimed that "millions" of Clinton voters had cast ballots "illegally."

Meanwhile, high-profile Clinton supporters have held up the dissonant results as an argument for fundamentally changing the system.
A week after the election, retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat and vocal Clinton backer, introduced a bill to abolish the Electoral College.

"This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and still lose the presidency," Boxer said in a statement. "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately."
Two days later, New York Congressman Charlie Rangel put forth companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

Measuring the electoral margin
In the final count, Clinton surpassed President Barack Obama's 2012 total by 389,944 votes, but narrow losses in key battleground states meant Obama won 100 more electoral votes on Election Day.
Trump's victories in swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida -- all carried by Obama four years ago -- gave him a comfortable edge in the Electoral College. Still, Trump’s claims of a "massive landslide victory" are belied by past statistics, which place his win among the narrowest.

If all the electors had voted in accordance with their states' results during meetings on Monday, Trump would have garnered 56.9% -- or 306 -- of the 538 available electoral votes. Two defections lowered his final share to 56.5%. Clinton won 232 electoral votes on November 8, but "faithless electors" also brought down her total.

The 2016 electoral votes will be counted on January 6 by a Joint Session of Congress, with Vice President Joe Biden presiding over the largely symbolic meeting. Trump will be inaugurated on January 20 in Washington.




December 11, 2016

With 2. 5 Mil Votes Ahead Clinton Had to Beat Trump and the KGB


                                                                         
Clinton is 2.5 Millions ahead after the mailed in ballots counted,
even though the votes were not counted. She had to run against Trump and the Russian KGB, never before.  
As mail-in and absentee voter ballots continue to trickle in and the country braces for President-elect Donald Trump to step into power, Hillary Clinton quietly marked a milestone. 
The latest election totals showed that Mrs Clinton, who lost to outsider Mr Trump last month, has received more votes than Mr Obama did in his 2012 victory, according to data from the National Archives and a running total by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report
She has overtaken Mr Trump by more than 2.5 million votes (48% to Mr Trump's 46%).
Mrs Clinton’s lead is the largest of the five times when a US presidential candidate won the popular vote but failed to win the election. 
In fact, aside from Mr Obama’s 2008 win, Mrs Clinton has received more votes than any other US presidential candidate in history. 

Yes, but the US has more voters, right?

The US has seen a dramatic rise in population over the last century, which would partly explain why Mrs Clinton received more votes than previous candidates.
This year the US had 200 million registered voters for the first time in history. 
So the proportion of Clinton votes might be more illuminating than simply how many votes she earned.
Her popular vote margin of 2.5 million falls short of the three million votes of George W Bush victory over John Kerry in 2004.
And it's a long way behind the 18% margin of victory Ronald Reagan earned in 1984.
But these were both winning margins.
The last time a candidate won the popular vote but lost the election was in 2000, when President Bush received 500,000 fewer votes than Al Gore and still took the White House. 
So, allowing for population growth, how does Clinton's total compare?
The 2004 election had a higher turnout than the 2016 election by about 1.7% of the voting age population, Stanford University political scientist David Brady points out. 
If the 2016 election had the same percentage of voting age population, about 2 million more voters would have gone to the polls. 

Does it matter?

Mr Trump is well over the 270 Electoral College threshold with his insurmountable lead of 306 votes to Mrs Clinton's 232, which means former Green Party nominee Jill Stein's recount campaign in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is unlikely to change the electoral math. 
Mr Brady likens it to the 1960 World Series, when the New York Yankees scored 55 runs while the Pittsburgh Pirates earned only 24 runs. But the Pirates still won the series 4-3. 
"She loses the World Series because she didn't win the right amount of states," he said. 
  •  The disproportionate effect of her vote is focused in Democratic-dependent states like California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts, said Bill Whalen, a senior research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute.
"It reflects where the population shift is in America and that the population has become very coastal," Mr Whalen said. 
But though metric of the popular vote does not change the outcome, it undercuts the argument that Mrs Clinton failed to mobilise Democrats, giving her supporters some sense of vindication.
In fact, Mr Trump's margin of victory in some key swing states was smaller than the number of votes Ms Stein, a third party candidate, received in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - three states that helped hand him the presidency.
However, Mr Brady's analysis of voter data in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin as well as Minnesota, found that districts in which Mrs Clinton won by more than 70% showed that though the population had increased, turnout was down.
Conversely, the districts that Mr Trump carried in those states by more than 70% showed that population had declined, but turnout had increased, signaling Mrs Clinton was unable to energise voters in those key states the way her Democratic predecessor did in 2008 and 2012. 

Does Trump have a mandate?

Mrs Clinton's popular vote win has left a bitter taste in the mouths of some Democrats, who contend Mr Trump is ignoring her support and governing with a mandate he does not have. 
Vice President-elect Mike Pence and former Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, Mr Trump's chief of staff, have boasted about Mr Trump's "landslide" victory.
"Trump can't claim a mandate in the purist sense," Mr Whalen contended, noting that President Obama did not claim a mandate in 2008 despite taking the popular vote as well as 365 electoral votes. 
He can, however, claim a mandate in an intellectual and emotional sense, according to Mr Whalen, noting that the narrative of people rejecting the political system and the status quo was reflected in Mr Trump's candidacy. 
Despite that political narrative, a plurality of Americans still cast their vote for Mrs Clinton.
"The problem with winning the popular vote is it just adds to the already hard feelings about this election," Mr Whalen said.
Courtney Subramanian

December 6, 2016

Rogue (Faithless) Electors’Talking’ in the Background-Clinton Wants No Part!


Short intro to the Electoral College:
The Electoral college System came about and it stayed even when there was no reason for people to stay home because of lack of transportation or roads (which was the original excuse) since by the 1800’s those problems were solved (if they ever existed). People could just vote in town at city hall or the courthouse or even at a school or church. The behind the scene reason however and the one no one wants to talk about was and sometimes is “slaves.” The slave owners were scare that eventually the slaves would have the vote. That sentiment became stronger as there were more and more freed slaves living in the populous north. The democracy way of one man one vote put these business people at a disadvantage. The electoral system ensured that the smaller in population slave owning states in the South would have a say of whom the President would be, not the populous “slave loving whites of the North.” Though the democracy fighting and free loving new nation became something other that a democracy of free loving people. Our nonsensical Electoral College still with us in the millennium making less and less sense on every election. Even if it doesn’t show it’s faults like it did in the past election, How can we tell people with a straight face,  every vote count?


                                                                      
One of the reasons Donald Trump made such a big deal of blaming Hillary Clinton for the recount even though He knew she had nothing to do with it but he wanted to warn her in no uncertain way to stay away not only from the recount but more importantly from trying to change any electors mind. You have electors that are Republicans and also Democrats and by Trump loosing the popular vote by so much which is never happened like this before at least there would be some talk among the electors about going rogue.

The last thing Hillary Clinton needs is to have a Derange with anger Trump and a GOP Congress come after her making her life miserable for the next few years. Still the recount is going without any support from Clinton and many believe that if the recount shows Clinton winning one or two states that were called as a loss for her it might change minds about the accuracy of the vote in general and the legality of Trump being declare winner by the electoral College.

Having said all that the media says there is no chance of the electors change their mind. I don’t know why they are so certain of that since it has happened before and it was the same media that said Hillary Clinton would win. 
                                                                         _*_
Advocates of the long-shot bid to turn the Electoral College against Donald Trump have been in contact with close allies of Hillary Clinton, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions, but the Clinton camp — and Clinton herself — have declined to weigh in on the merits of the plan.

Clinton’s team and the Democratic National Committee have steadfastly refused to endorse the efforts spearheaded by a group of electors in Colorado and Washington state. But, as with the ongoing recounts initiated by Green Party nominee Jill Stein, the Clinton team has not categorically rejected them, leaving the collection of mainly Democratic electors to push forward with no explicit public support from the failed Democratic nominee or any other prominent party leaders.


In a sign of the sensitivity of the issue, former Clinton campaign officials declined repeated requests to comment on the Electoral College effort. DNC officials also have not responded to requests for comment.

The Clinton camp’s silence follows its cautious approach to another long-shot effort to deny Trump the presidency: the last-minute recount efforts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan launched by Stein. Stein’s aggressive push has annoyed Clinton aides but has also not drawn their outward condemnation — Clinton’s top campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, said in carefully chosen language Nov. 26 that the campaign will “participate” in the recounts, without expanding on its plans to get involved.

“Regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself,” wrote Elias.

The electors leading the anti-Trump push say they’re operating without regard to the Clinton campaign’s views and without its assistance. To some leaders of the anti-Trump effort, the lack of formal Democratic Party engagement is an asset as they attempt to woo Republicans.

“We’re really doing this on our own,” said Polly Baca, a Democratic elector from Colorado and organizer of “Hamilton Electors,” the group encouraging Republican defections from Trump. “This is something we have to do as electors. This is our responsibility.”
 
By DANIEL STRAUSS

But Clinton will not be able to avoid getting drawn into the Electoral College machinations. That’s because her husband — former President Bill Clinton — is a Democratic elector from New York. Aides to the former president have declined repeated requests for comment on whether he intends to fulfill the role or pass it to an alternate when New York’s Electoral College members convene in Albany on Dec. 19. Baca has indicated that she intends to reach out to all electors — including Clinton — for support.

Another leader of the Hamilton Electors group, Colorado elector Micheal Baca (no relation to Polly), said the group’s outreach efforts are wide-ranging.

“Given what’s at stake, we have been outreaching to everyone we can including electors, various members of both parties, and the media,” he said. “One of the most inspiring things about this entire process is how we have encountered such patriotism from both sides of the aisle and much willingness to unite for America.”

Backers of Hamilton Electors are also preparing a wave of lawsuits challenging 29 state laws that purport to bind electors to the results of the statewide popular vote. These laws have never been enforced or tested, and many constitutional scholars believe they conflict with the Founders’ vision of the Electoral College as a deliberative body. Courtroom victories, they hope, will embolden other electors to join their cause.

All 538 members of the Electoral College will meet on Dec. 19 in their respective state capitals to cast the formal vote for president. Trump won the popular vote in states that constitute 306 electors — easily above the 270-vote threshold he needs to become president if all Republican electors support him. That’s why anti-Trump electors are working to persuade at least 37 Republican electors to ditch Trump, the minimum they’d need to prevent his election, and join them in support of a compromise candidate, which could send the final decision to the House of Representatives. Clinton won the popular vote in states that include a total of 232 electors. As of Monday, she led in the popular vote nationwide by more than 2.6 million votes.

At least eight Democratic electors are promising to defect from Clinton and support a Republican alternative to Trump.

While Trump’s lawyers have been working to stymie the recounts, his campaign has paid little attention to the Electoral College initiative. The same is true of the Clinton camp. Clinton would need all three recounts to overturn the Election Day results to get to 270 electoral votes — an extremely unlikely scenario.

Recounts aside, there’s little incentive for the Clinton camp to become involved with the anti-Trump effort because it can result only in detracting from her electoral vote total. The only reason to engage at all would be to support an effort to deny Trump an Electoral College majority.

December 3, 2016

Many Variables But Yes The Millennial’s Made Hillary Loose the Election






Hillary Clinton's campaign has lots of excuses for losing. There's the electoral collegeJames Comey, the media's alleged over-exuberance in digging into Clinton's email server, etc. But Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said Thursday that one particular group is especially to blame: millennials.
As Karen Tumulty and Philip Rucker reported from the big election postmortem at Harvard on Thursday night:
Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook also acknowledged that her operation had made a number of mistakes and miscalculations, while being buffeted by what he repeatedly described as a “headwind” of being an establishment candidate in a season where voters were anxious for change.
He noted, for example, that younger voters, perhaps assuming that Clinton was going to win, migrated to third-party candidates in the final days of the race.
Where the campaign needed to win upward of 60 percent of young voters, it was able to garner something “in the high 50s at the end of the day,” Mook said. “That’s why we lost.”
I'll admit I was skeptical. Young people often get blamed for not showing up to vote; they're an easy target that way. What's more, just before the election, polls indicated that young voters — who had previously shunned Clinton — were actually rallying to her in a big way.
Digging into the numbers, however, Mook has a point.
The national exit poll shows Clinton underperformed Barack Obama's 2012 share of the vote by one point with those between the ages of 30 and 44 and by three points with those ages 45 to 64. She actually overperformed him by one point with those over 65.
Among those between 18 and 29, though, she took five points less — 55 percent versus Obama's 60 percent. Here's how those numbers compare to 2012:




Clinton's 55-36 margin among those ages 18 to 29 is also significantly worse than late polls suggested it would be. A mid-October poll from the Harvard Institute of Politics showed her leading Trump 49 to 21 with third-party candidates included and 59 to 29 in a two-way matchup with Trump — either a 28- or 30-point margin. A GenForward survey conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, meanwhile, had her up 41 points, 60 to 19.
These were large, quality surveys testing only young people, but they differed hugely from the results. Clinton's final margin was 19.
They, of course, are national polls, and the race was really decided in a handful of close states — Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, in particular. And sure enough, Clinton did even worse among young people in those states, according to exit polls. While Clinton's national margin of victory among young people was only four points worse than Obama's 60-to-37 edge, Michigan's exit poll shows her margin among young people there was five points worse (+28 for Obama vs. +23 for Clinton). In Florida, it was 16 points worse (+34 vs. +18). In Pennsylvania, it was 17 points worse (+28 vs. +9). And in Wisconsin, it was 20 points worse (+23 vs. +3).
Caveat: Exit polls, like any polls, are subject to error. Did Trump really only lose young people in Wisconsin by only three points? I'm very skeptical.
But if that number is anywhere close to accurate, it accounts for Clinton's narrow loss in the Badger State. The exit polls suggest Clinton netted about half a point overall from young people given she won them 47 to 44 and they comprised 17 percent of the electorate. Obama, by contrast, netted nearly five points when he won them 60 to 37 and they were 21 percent of Wisconsin's electorate. Clinton lost the state by less than a point, so that difference more than accounts for it. We’re extrapolating here, and it's inexact, but the fact is that even if Clinton had come anywhere close to Obama's share of the youth vote, she would have held on to Wisconsin. 
The story is similar in Pennsylvania. Clinton won those under 30 years old 52 to 43 after Obama won them 63 to 35, and in Florida, where Clinton won them 54 to 46 versus Obama's 66 to 32. It was closer in Michigan, where Clinton won the 57 to 34 versus Obama's 63 to 35. But, if you run the numbers in each state, had Clinton simply come closer to Obama's margin with young people, she would have won.
So if you accept the exit polls, it's clear Clinton did significantly worse among young people, and it was more than enough to make the difference in the states that mattered. But what if she wasn't supposedto do as well among young people as Obama did? Obama certainly had a unique appeal to them that would seem hard for an older candidate with less of a demonstrated millennial appeal to replicate.
That's fair, but it's also worth noting here just how much young people hated Trump. Harvard showed just 22 percent of young likely voters had a favorable opinion of Trump, while 76 percent had an unfavorable one. Basically every poll showed something similar.
It's true that young people never seemed to love Clinton. Even Harvard's poll showing her up big revealed that more young likely voters disliked her (51 percent) than liked her (48 percent). But it seemed their distaste for Trump was leading them to coalesce around the lesser of two evils.
In the end, it just doesn't appear to have happened as much as Clinton needed it to. In short: Robby Mook was right.

November 9, 2016

Hillary’s Concession Speech Highlights





 
Here are the highlights from her appearance as posted by the New York Times:

• Senator Tim Kaine, who spoke first, said “I’m proud of Hillary Clinton because she has been and is a great history maker,” pointing to her long career of public service. He saluted her for winning the popular vote in the election, drawing cheers.

• Wiping a tear from her eye, Mrs. Clinton thanked her supporters and said “Thank you, my friends, thank you so very much for being here. I love you all too.”

• Mrs. Clinton said that she feels pride in the campaign that she ran and said of Mr. Trump, “I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans.” 

• Mrs. Clinton said that she respects and cherishes the peaceful transition of power and said told her supporters that they must accept that Mr. Trump will be president. “We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead,” she said.

• After a long campaign, Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that the loss cuts deep. “This is painful, and it will be for a long time,” she said.

• Mrs. Clinton said that she hopes citizens will still fight for the values that she promoted in her campaign and that “the American dream is big enough for everyone.” However, she acknowledged that the country was more divided than she realized.

• Mrs. Clinton saluted President Obama’s “graceful” leadership, and thanked her family for buttressing her during a grueling campaign.

• Mrs. Clinton expressed regret that she did not shatter the glass ceiling, but said, “Someday, someone will and hopefully sooner than we might think right now.”

• Mrs. Clinton tried to lift the spirits of her supporters by advising them to never give up on their dreams. “I’ve had successes and I’ve had setbacks – sometimes really painful ones,” she said. “This loss hurts, but please, never stop believing that fighting for what’s right is worth it.”

• To the women who supported her, Mrs. Clinton said that “nothing has made me prouder than to be your champion.”

• In conclusion, Mrs. Clinton urged the country to “let us not grow weary, let us not lose heart.”

Obama to Ask Nation to Come Together

President Obama will make a statement at 12:15 p.m. on Wednesday about the results of the election, the White House said, in which he will call on the nation to come together after a divisive campaign.

The planned appearance to a handful of reporters in the Cabinet Room was timed to come after Hillary Clinton’s remarks in Manhattan publicly conceding the election to Donald J. Trump. The president called Mr. Trump from the White House early Wednesday morning to congratulate him on his victory, and phoned Mrs. Clinton to express “admiration” for her campaign, his aides said.

He is to meet with Mr. Trump on Thursday at the White House to discuss the monthslong transition process that will culminate in January with the Republican’s inauguration as the 45th president.

Obama Congratulates Trump

The White House said on Wednesday that President Obama made an early-morning call to Mr. Trump to congratulate him and invite him to a meeting there on Thursday to discuss preparations to hand over power to him over the next several weeks.

In an emailed statement that marked the first reaction by the White House to Mr. Trump’s upset election, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said that Mr. Obama had also called Hillary Clinton, “and expressed admiration for the strong campaign she waged throughout the country.”

The president planned to make a statement later Wednesday from the White House “to discuss the election results and what steps we can take as a country to come together after this hard-fought election season,” Mr. Earnest said.

The routine postelection statement was an extraordinary moment after a contest that was unpredictable until the very last moment, in which Mr. Obama had campaigned feverishly for Mrs. Clinton, his chosen successor, calling Mr. Trump a dangerously unqualified candidate whose election would threaten the republic.

Mr. Obama had said his own legacy was on the ballot in the contest and that he would take it as a personal affront if voters did not rally behind Mrs. Clinton. And he repeatedly argued that he did not believe it was possible for Mr. Trump, who rose to political prominence questioning the authenticity of Mr. Obama’s American birth certificate, to win the White House.

Can Trump Calm the Markets – and the World?

The election returns on Tuesday sent stock futures into a dive and drew expressions of consternation from abroad. Mr. Trump campaigned and won as a proud agitator, but he has different responsibilities as the president-elect. Helping to avert international panic is one of them.

He managed to summon a more sober demeanor at points during the campaign, including in his victory speech — though never for very long. And even if he is comparatively placid on Wednesday, it is unclear that investors and foreign leaders will take things in stride.

Depending on how he handles the day, Mr. Trump may reveal both the range of his abilities as a political communicator and the true intensity of opposition and fear he faces across the globe.
 

Mr. Trump declared overnight that he would work even with people who had opposed him in the campaign, and he pledged to bring the country together. That will be no small task for a politician who fractured one political party and savaged another, and whom most Americans described in polls as biased against women and minorities.

Having long boasted of his accommodating personality and skill at salesmanship, Mr. Trump must now put those abilities to work — courting business executives and conservatives who opposed him, calming national security leaders and even seeking out relationships with Democrats.

Whether Mr. Trump can win over these constituencies may well determine if he is capable not just of winning, but of governing. How quickly will he pick up the phone?

We’re interested in your feedback on our election coverage. Tell us what you think.
Will the Left Strike Back?

The most liberal wing of the Democratic Party was emboldened throughout the 2016 campaign, but it was held in check to some degree by Hillary Clinton’s relative moderation. With Mrs. Clinton defeated, that restraint is likely to disappear, and populist liberals, like Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, may quickly emerge as the party’s top spokespeople.

With Democrats cast out of the White House, it is difficult to predict what course they will take in battling Mr. Trump — whether they will resist him through filibusters and street protests, legislative mechanics or even attempts at compromise.

But there is unlikely to be much appetite among Democrats for conciliating Mr. Trump, and — as Republicans found over the last eight years — the loudest and most potent voices in the party are most likely to be those of blunt ideological opposition.

What Becomes of the Anti-Trump Right?

Dozens of Republican elected officials resisted Mr. Trump’s rise to power, including some who revoked their endorsements in the heat of the general election. Senators like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona declared Mr. Trump unfit to lead, while ideological conservatives like Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Mike Lee of Utah warned of Mr. Trump’s indifference to the limits of government power.


These Trump critics on the right now face a wrenching political choice: to defer to him as the country’s new leader, or to take up a quasi-oppositional role against a Republican as he assembles his administration. Since Republicans kept control of the House and Senate, dissenters within Mr. Trump’s party may hold outsize influence over exactly how he can govern as president.
 

November 7, 2016

Something is Happening with Latinos Turnout for Clinton



 


With reports coming in from several states about historic turnout by Latino voters, a new tracking poll supports the argument that something real is happening for Hillary Clinton.

The tracking poll conducted by polling firm Latino Decisions for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) began eight weeks ago and Clinton has hit full stride with Latinos just two days before the election. With eagerness over the 2016 race at its highest mark since the tracking poll began, 55 percent of Latino voters are more enthusiastic over this election than they were in 2012, say experts.
 

The tracking poll numbers show Clinton receiving her highest favorability rating among Latinos in the last week of the tracking poll, now at 70 percent. By contrast, Donald Trump continues to occupy low ratings among Latinos, now at 17 percent. Perhaps most important for the Democrats in down ballot races, favorability ratings for Democrats in Congress have also reached their highest point since the poll began, at 65 percent.


Swing states like Florida, Nevada and North Carolina as well as states like Texas are reporting upswings in early voting among Latinos.

Lines in Nevada had to stay open late to accommodate voters in Clark County as early voters swamped polling places in Latino neighborhoods. Jon Ralston, a longtime political analyst in Nevada crunched the numbers as they were being reported and relayed them in real-time over Twitter in dramatic fashion.

His analysis continues to conclude that Latino voters in Nevada have formed a fire line of support for Clinton that is highly unlikely to fall on election day. Ralston wrote, "About two-thirds of the votes already have been banked if the past is prologue, [Trump] is cooked. Believe me!"


Florida saw record turnout, as well, among Latinos, making up almost 14 percent of the early vote tally in the Sunshine State compared to 10 percent in 2012.

Turnout by Latinos, experts predict, could have far reaching implications for future elections in locations where Hispanics have not traditionally been a concern for Republicans.

Dave Wasserman, editor of Cook Political Report, reported record numbers in Latino counties in Virginia, such as Manassas County, Prince William County, and Fairfax County. Manassas and Prince William are 35 percent and 22 percent Latino, respectively, and they saw increases of 51 percent for Manassas and 62 percent in Prince William.


With the election two days away, researchers are cautiously optimistic about the Latino vote. However, if the reports on the ground are consistent with the polling, we are likely to see historic record turnout among Hispanic voters.

 

Clinton’s Qualifications Sustains Her Through Sea of Lies and Attempts to Cheat



                                                                         



Federal judges in two states issued rulings Friday as allegations swirled about potential issues at the polls -- saying registration rolls were "likely" illegally purged in North Carolina and barring the Trump campaign from intimidating voters in Ohio.
In the Ohio case, a federal judge imposed a temporary restraining order on the Trump campaign, political operative and sometimes Trump adviser Roger Stone, and a group called Stop the Steal, Inc. which is associated with Stone, from “conspiring to intimidate, threaten, harass, or coerce voters on Election Day.”
The order also extends to the Clinton campaign, even though there was no allegation of wrongdoing against them in the suit, brought by the Ohio Democratic Party. They are prohibited from hindering voters "from reaching or leaving the polling place," engaging in any unauthorized "poll watching," or gathering or loitering near polling places unless they plan to vote. Trump has repeatedly called for his supporters to watch the polls for voter fraud and said the election would be “rigged."


Separately, a North Carolina judge ruled today that the purging of voters names off registration rolls in the state "likely" violated the National Voter Registration Act and issued a preliminary injunction that ordered all steps to be taken to allow those individuals to vote. A suit alleging improprieties was brought by the NAACP which claimed that there are “thousands of North Carolina voters who have been targeted in coordinated, en masse challenge proceedings brought in the final weeks and months before Election Day." During a campaign rally in Raleigh, NC, Wednesday, President Obama decried the recent claims that voters’ names were allegedly being systematically removed from voter registration rolls in the state.
"The list of voters Republicans tried to purge were two-thirds black and Democratic,” he charged. “That doesn't happen by accident. It's happening in counties across this state.”
"There was a time when systematically denying black folks to vote was considered normal as well. ... It was not that long ago that folks had to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar or bubbles on a bar of soap or recite the Constitution in Chinese in order to vote. It wasn't that long ago when folks were beaten trying to register voters in Mississippi," he added.
Voter roll purges have come up in other states in the past few months and during the primaries, as state and county boards of election try to update their rolls to clear them of anyone who has died or moved out of state.
Voter intimidation cases are also cropping up around the country. Cases were heard in Nevada and Arizona on Thursday, and another will be held in Pennsylvania on Monday.
In Pennsylvania, Attorney General Bruce Breemer said today that his office and the Pennsylvania State Police "are investigating a pattern of voter registration irregularities across the Commonwealth" but said "it is premature to reach any conclusion. At this stage of the investigation there is no evidence of voter fraud."
And in Michigan today, the Michigan Democratic Party filed a lawsuit alleging that the Trump campaign along with the Michigan Republican Party, are conspiring to intimidate minorities from voting.
The plaintiffs in that case are asking a federal judge in Michigan to stop Republican operatives from tactics that plaintiffs say are unlawfully aimed at suppressing Democratic votes across the state, especially in urban areas where large shares of African Americans are likely to vote for Hillary Clinton.
In the lawsuit, Democrats accuse Trump of using the potential for voter fraud as a pretext for encouraging supporters to show up at polling places ostensibly to stop people from casting multiple ballots.
The plaintiffs alleged that Trump's heated, racially-tinged rhetoric has led to a kind of domino effect, accelerated by associate Roger Stone, a named defendant, as well as Republican party officials in Michigan who have encouraged "roving poll watchers in places like Detroit."
The lawsuit cites a Trump supporter quoted in a press report saying his election-day plans includes racially profiling voters at polling places to "make them a little bit nervous."
“Trump’s calls for his supporters to travel en masse outside their counties of residence and engage in vigilante voter intimidation bear no possible relationship to legitimate efforts to protect against voter fraud,” the complaint states. “In fact, Trump has directed his supporters to engage in activity forbidden by Michigan state election law.” There was no immediate response from the Trump campaign.
In another case, a New Jersey federal judge today heard allegations that the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee were coordinating voter intimidation efforts, despite a legal settlement that prohibits the RNC from participating in any "ballot security" efforts. The RNC claims it has no oral or written agreements with the Trump campaign regarding “voter fraud, ballot security, ballot integrity, poll watching or poll monitoring.”
The issue of voter intimidation efforts is one of the most pressing versions of disenfranchisement in this year's race, said Myrna Perez, the deputy director of New York University's Brennan Center for Justice's Democracy Program.
Perez said their watchdog organization has seen examples of "both the lawful disenfranchisement and the unlawful disenfranchisement" of voters throughout the past year or two. She included restrictive voter ID laws and the Supreme Court's 2013 changes to the Voting Rights Act as examples of "lawful" disenfranchisement, but those are not the focus of the last-minute court actions under way now.
"I think in this instance, for the first half of the year, people were concerned about the formal state policies and practices and, right now, folks are concerned about what may be happening on Election Day,” she said.
“What happens when individuals get involved in monitoring and policing our polls, and what unofficial actors are going to be doing.”
But responsible poll monitoring is still important to help combat voter fraud, Michael Thielen, executive director of the Republican National Lawyers Association, said. "Every fraudulent vote overrides a legitimate, real vote and disenfranchises an honest, eligible voter,” Thielen told ABC News. ABC News’ Julia Jacobo and John Kruzel contributed to this report.


  • An Open Letter from An Activist to the LGBT Voting Community







     





     
    An Open Letter to the LGBT Community On the Eve of the 2016 Election
    In a recent interview with the Washington Blade, Hillary Clinton described me as a “role model” and a “truly remarkable woman: smart, feisty and very brave.” While I am obviously so honored by her remarks, I actually think that the person those words best describe is Hillary herself.

    Hillary has been a role model her whole life. From her earliest days as the first ever student Commencement Speaker at Wellesley College in 1969, to her time as our nation’s Secretary of State, Hillary was a natural leader, pushing her generation to make the kind of transformational change that today’s millennials are demanding. You can listen to her speech yourself on the internet. It’s incredible that someone so young could be so wise beyond her years. Hillary continues to serve as a role model today, including to all the kids with LGBT parents who come to see her at her rallies and the many LGBT persons on her campaign staff like her campaign manager, Robby Mook.

    There certainly can be no question that Hillary is incredibly smart. At the three debates against Donald Trump, not only did she demonstrate a complete mastery of every issue, but she managed to do so with the utmost dignity, even in the face of constant taunting from Donald Trump. In those debates, Hillary made it very clear that she would only appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would understand and defend the equal dignity of LGBT people.

    Feisty? Again, Hillary has demonstrated that quality hands down. When it comes to defending the interests of children, no one has been feistier or more determined. She has spoken out against the bullying of LGBT kids, will prohibit conversion therapy nationwide, and has worked to make it easier for LGBT couples to adopt.

    Confronting injustice takes bravery, and Hillary has lots of that as well. In 1995, she had the courage to say in no uncertain terms that “Women’s rights are human rights.” In 2011, she declared that “Gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.” Hillary is a fighter who never gives up. As the first woman President of the United States, she will fight for the Equality Act, take on LGBT homelessness, and will implement a plan to move us closer to an AIDS-free generation.

    If you haven’t already voted for Hillary, please, please, please do so — and encourage your friends and family to do the same. You can go to IWillVote.com to confirm your polling place and get all the information you need to vote in this important election. And if you’d like to do even more, go to HillaryClinton.com and sign up to volunteer.

    In only a few days, this great nation — which allowed me to win my case before the United States Supreme Court — will elect it’s next President. We must defeat Trump and his homophobic vice presidential candidate, Mike Pence. To borrow Hillary’s own words from that 1969 commencement speech, we really don’t have time for fear. Not now. Now is the time for action. Now is the time to vote. Every single one of us. Now.

    Very truly yours,
    Edith S. Windsor
    Hillary Clinton2016 ElectionPoliticsLGBTQ

     
    Edie Windsor
    LGBT activist. Computer operating systems pioneer. NYC resident.

    November 6, 2016

    FBI Clear Clinton One More Time-Can The Damage be Fixed?




     
    FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers Sunday the agency hasn't changed its opinion that Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges after a review of new emails.

    “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July," Comey wrote in the new letter to congressional committee chairmen.

    Comey dropped a bombshell on the presidential race last month when he sent a letter to Congress saying the FBI had discovered emails in a separate investigation that could be connected to the now-closed probe of whether Clinton mishandled classified information. The move infuriated Democrats and emboldened Republican nominee Donald Trump.

    It's impossible to know before results are tallied what impact Comey's actions -- first raising a vaguely worded red flag 11 days out, and then lowering it two days from the election -- will have on the contest. But the news could help Clinton put to rest a controversy that has dogged her in the 2016 race's closing days, helping Trump narrow a polling gap nationally and in key battleground states.
    Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, blasted Comey’s handling of the review.

    "Today's letter makes Director Comey's actions nine days ago even more troubling," Feinstein said in a statement. “There's no doubt that it created a false impression about the nature of the agency's inquiry."

    She added: "The Justice Department needs to take a look at its procedures to prevent similar actions that could influence future elections."
    Emotions run high in final days of the campaign
    Election 2016: Emotions run high in final days of the campaign
    ‘As fast as we could'

    Comey’s letter was the culmination of a fast-paced review of the newly discovered email, law enforcement sources said Sunday.

    "We went through this as fast as we could," a senior law enforcement official told CNN.
    The FBI found the new emails as part of its separate investigation into a sexting incident by Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

    The thousands of new emails were mostly personal and duplicates of what had already been seen, law enforcement officials said in explaining how the conclusion was reached so quickly. The laptop which was found was about a decade old with lots of personal content on it not relevant to the investigation, according to one source.

    Comey sent the letter as soon as possible, the senior law enforcement official said. He was "very careful" about how the letter was crafted given the sensitivities.
    Attorney General Loretta Lynch was informed ahead of time that the FBI director was sending the updated letter to Congress informing them of that there would be no change in the FBI stance on Hillary Clinton, a Justice official told CNN on Sunday.

    Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates disagreed with Comey's earlier decision to notify Congress. The attorney general backed Comey's move Sunday.
    “Everyone is on the same page," the source said.

    Since there is no change to the original findings, the Justice Department has no need to weigh in further, the official said.
    "The Department of Justice and the FBI dedicated all necessary resources to conduct this review expeditiously," the Justice Department said in a brief statement released Sunday afternoon.
    Campaigns weigh in
    Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said her campaign is validated in its belief that nothing would change.

    "We were always confident nothing would cause the July decision to be revisited. Now Director Comey has confirmed it,” he tweeted.

    The Trump campaign quickly slammed Comey.

    “We thought that Director Comey and the FBI were wrong when they made their initial recommendation in July, and we think that they're wrong now," Trump spokesman Jason Miller told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room."

    GOP vice presidential nominee Mike Pence sought to keep the pressure on Clinton.
    "Mishandling classified information is a crime," he said at a rally in an airport hanger in Hickory, North Carolina. “Hillary Clinton said that she never sent or received any classified information and the director of the FBI told the Congress classified information was sent."

    Trump himself did not directly address the FBI's latest announcement as he took the stage at a rally in Minneapolis more than 20 minutes after news of Comey's letter to Congress surfaced. He continued to argue that Clinton “will be under investigation for a long, long time."

    But the Republican nominee, who has expressed hope in the last week that the FBI’s review of new emails might yield an indictment, emphasized to his supporters Sunday that Clinton is "protected" by powerful forces.

    “Well, you have to understand it's a rigged system and she's protected," Trump said, though he offered no evidence to back up his theory.

    ‘It opened a wound'

    A senior Democrat close to Clinton’s campaign told CNN that "it's impossible to fully undo the damage of the last nine days."

    Internal campaign polling, the source said, found that some independents and Republican women fled Clinton after the original Comey announcement, robbing her of a constituency that she’d hoped would turn her contest with Trump into a blowout.

    "It opened a wound that cannot be quickly healed," the Democrat said.
    However, the Democrat called it a relief that the “matter is resolved" and said Clinton's campaign plans to "make everyone know about" Comey's Sunday letter.

    Comey's last-minute announcement gives Clinton an opportunity for an I-told-you-so moment.
    "We have seen Director Comey's latest letter to the Hill," said Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's communications director, speaking with reporters after the news broke. "We are glad to see that he has found, as we were confident that he would, that he had confirmed the conclusions he reached in July and we are glad that this matter is resolved."
     
     Trump and his allies have seized on that announcement, using it claim Clinton is likely to face criminal charges.

    "If she were to win, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis," Trump claimed Saturday night in Reno, Nevada. "In that situation we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and ultimately a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt."
    Political benefit

    The political benefit for Trump has been that Republicans who’d been skeptical of their party's nominee have largely followed vice presidential nominee Mike Pence's calls to "come home" to the party -- finding Trump less objectionable than Clinton.

    It's not just Trump's campaign that seized on Comey's actions. Down-ballot Republicans -- particularly Senate candidates who had been forced to answer for Trump's statements for months -- used the moment to change the topic, shifting to the more comfortable ground of attacking Clinton.

    The last-minute Sunday move from Comey could also provide new fuel for Trump’s claims of a "rigged" system -- allowing him to cast the FBI director's intervention in the presidential election in a new light.
     
    Al Franken: FBI's James Comey should face Senate hearings
    Comey and the FBI went from Trump's scapegoat to the Republican nominee's hero, with Trump claiming Comey had redeemed himself just in time.
    Newt Gingrich, a top Trump ally, tweeted “Comey must be under enormous political pressure to cave like this."

    November 5, 2016

    Active and Retired US Military Backing Clinton in Greater Numbers






    Active and retired members of the military have been showing far more support for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton than for her Republican rival, at least as measured by the checks they’ve written to her campaign.
    Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those, have contributed a total of $972,709 to both nominees so far this year. Clinton has claimed $771,471 of the contributions, or nearly 80 percent.
    All major branches of the armed forces – including the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard – have favored Clinton to a much greater degree than GOP nominee Donald Trump. Members of the Army have contributed more than other branches of the service this cycle, giving a total of $191,712 to the two presidential hopefuls, 72 percent of which went to Clinton.
    Meanwhile, it’s the Air Force that has given the largest portion of its contributions to Trump, though it still favors Clinton by a lot. Trump received 39 percent of the $110,711 given to the two candidates by people connected to the Air Force.
    (Our analysis includes donors giving more than $200; candidates don’t have to provide identifying information about smaller donors to the public.)
    If this seems surprising, consider this: Up until the primaries were over, the military favorite was Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), who received $374,600. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) came in a close third after Clinton.
    “People assume the military leans Republican, but I think that has fundamentally changed in the 21st century,” retired Rear Adm. Jamie Barnett said.
    Barnett, who has contributed $600 to Clinton campaign so far this cycle, also said that since a single person in the Oval Office can commit the country to war, those in uniform are certainly willing to put some money on the line to help elect a leader they believe has the right skill set. “The last thing we want to see is our men and women in uniform going into a war we don’t need” due to ego, lack of judgment or some other personal flaw, Barnett added.
    Retired members of the military seem particularly aghast at the thought of a Trump presidency, based on their contributions this cycle. Of the $135,392 that came from former service members so far, only 2 percent has gone to the brash businessman’s campaign.
    Of course, history has shown that campaign contributions don’t necessarily reflect the results at the polls. Despite Obama’s victory in contributions from the military, 2012 Gallup data showed that veterans preferred Romney by 24 points over Obama.
    Ramapo College Professor Jeremy Teigen, who studies military and politics, warned that while Clinton — and before her Obama — may be more popular with members of the military who donate to candidates, “that does not mirror the partisan voting tendencies of the military overall. We know, for instance, that the officer ranks trend substantially toward the GOP while the enlisted ranks trend less so but still toward Republicans.”
    That Republican leaning has become more pronounced since the draft ended in the 1970s, Teigen said. “Now that the military is entirely self-selected, mostly male, and somewhat more likely to come from conservative social contexts, the men in the armed forces vote for Republican candidates and identify with the Republican Party more than not,” he said. (Teigen noted that less is known about the political leanings of women in the military.)
    The New York Times reported on Thursday that veterans are turning to Trump, feeling abandoned by establishment politicians. Veterans featured in the story have called the nominee, “genuine,” and “a breath of fresh air.”
    But University of Maryland Professor Emeritus David Segal said he’s seen more veterans against Trump than for him.
    “Honestly, there’s not much enthusiasm for Clinton either, but veterans around me seem to have far less distaste for [Clinton] than Trump,” Segal said. “Trump does not value veterans, and in fact, insults families of veterans who have died in combat,” a reference to Trump’s tirades against the Khan family, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention in July.
    Segal, who directs the Center for Research on Military Organization, said there are also concerns among military members that Trump is likely to get the U.S. into another war. He said Clinton, though somewhat hawkish herself, has a good understanding of working diplomacy, having served as secretary of state,
    Earlier this year, Trump showed strong support for the use of nuclear weapons during a television interview, saying, “Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?” He continued, “Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?”
    Early in the 2012 cycle, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, too, suffered from lack of support from military donors, raising only $45,738 by March, compared to the $333,134 for GOP primary rival Ron Paul and $184,505 for President Barack Obama. By the end of the cycle, though, Romney had managed to raise $753,691 from these donors, much closer to Obama’s $947,338.
    As different as the two candidates may seem, Trump and Clinton are actually fairly similar in the sense that both back strong defense spending. The GOP nominee has been vocal about spending extra dollars on the military, and according to Center for Strategic and International Studies’ estimates, Trump’s proposals would cost $640 billion per year, about $80 billion over President Obama administration’s projection.
    “Trump talks about increasing the defense budget, but he’s not paying his taxes,” Segal said. He said it’s difficult for the Republican to win respect from military members when he’s not paying his fair share of the cost of what he’s proposing to spend.
    The fate of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which severely restricts spending for various priorities including defense, will be key in determining whether Trump can actually implement his expensive proposals, but he hasn’t made his position clear on the budget cap through 2021 yet. Clinton however, has implied support for repealing the budget restraint in her vague policy statement that supports “ending the sequester for both defense and non-defense spending in a balanced way.”

     
    Soo Rin KimSoo Rin covered environmental issues for the Investigative Reporting Workshop during the summer of 2016 before joining CRP as a fall reporting intern. She received her B.A. in May 2016 from the Missouri School of Journalism, where she studied investigative and data journalism. While at Missouri, she also covered community environmental and housing issues for local publications. Soo Rin, who is originally from South Korea, has also written about media law issues while interning at The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

    Read all of 

    Featured Posts

    Human Rights Campaign Testifies Against Judge Neil Gorsuch

    LGBTQ groups have come out in strong opposition to the nomination of Neil Gorsuch as U.S. Supreme Court Justice, ar...