Tag President

Count Me In

Michael 7 Comments
I’ll start out politely. If you still have a campaign sign up for any candidate for any office in your front yard stop being a tool and go that that thing down. Yes, Virginia, the election is over. And be responsible, those signs are recyclable you know.
 
Okay, now let’s all sit down and have our physicis, err, civics lessons. The election is over. The counting may not be and guess what, it almost never ever is by now in any year. That’s because there are always recanvases and audits, sometimes recounts, and election boards have to review all of this before any count can be certified. The chances of mis-counts happening are pretty slim. Occasionally they do and sometimes between projection, final count, and certified count 1, or 2 votes might swing. Pretty important stuff for the dogcatcher at Dog Patch, voter population 4. Not so important when we are talking about 150 million voters. Close votes sometimes trigger automatic recounts, or often induce apparent losers to petition for a recount. The information clearinghouse Ballotpedia reviewed 4,687 statewide general elections and noted than recounts were ordered 27 times. Of those 3 resulted in a change in the apparent winner and in those three cases the initial margin of apparent victory was 161 votes or less.
 
Here’s a fact of life. Incumbents don’t always win. Even Presidential incumbents. In the United States thirteen times before this year the incumbent President failed to win reelection beginning with America’s very second President. In 1912 William Howard Taft finished third in a 3 way race in his reelection! This is not an American phenomenon. Across the globe incumbent Presidents have lost in reelection attempts outside the U. S. over 60 times since Taft’s third place finish.
 
imagesIf the votes of the 2020 election stand as they are currentry counted, with Joe Biden pulling in more than 51% of the popular vote cast, this is not a particularly close race. That’s not particularly uncommon. Before this year popular vote winner failed to receive more 50% of the votes cast eighteen times although not all if then were close. The most recent close race was the 2000 Bush vs Gore election with George W. Bush defeating Al Gore in the electoral college by 1 vote but losing the popular vote to Gore by 500,000 out of approximately 102 million votes cast (48.4% to 47.9%). In 1960 with Kennedy vs Nixon although John Kennedy had a comfortable majority of 84 electoral votes, Richard Nixon won electors in 26 states to 22 for Kennedy (Harry F. Byrds won 2 states) and the popular vote difference between Kennedy and Nixon was 113,000 out of about 69 million votes cast (49.72% 49.55%). In 1876 Hayes ve Tilden the popular vote went to Samuel Tilden  although Rutherford B. Hayes won in the electoral college by one vote. In 1824 in a 4 way race John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson by less than 45,000 votes, neither candidate receive a majority of electoral votes and the President was determine by a vote in the House of Representatives which was won by Adams by a single vote. (The popular vote results were 41.4% Jackson, 30.9% Adams, 25.2% combined Crawford and Clay although not all states held general elections for President.) 
 
Not all close popular vote victories resulted in electoral college nail biters and some large electoral college wins were determined by quite small popular vote margins. Some electoral college votes cannot even by compared to popular vote because until 1828 not all states held elections for president. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S.Constitution specified the states would elect the president but bow the states determined for whom each would cast their vote was left to the states themselves. Five times electoral college victories were scored by popular vote losers, most recently in 2016 when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by 77 electors yet receiving 2.75 million less popular votes. Others include George W. Bush and John Quincy Adams already mentioned. In 1888 Benjamin Harrison defeated incumbent Grover Cleveland by 2 electors while losing the popular vote by 9,500 votes. Twelve years earlier Rutherford B. Hayes took the electoral college by a margin of 65 votes while losing the popular vote to Samuel Tilden by 110,000 votes cast. Did anybody ever win all available electoral votes? Actually yes, twice. George Washington and George Washington. 
 
What does all this tell us? A couple things. We can sit around all day, all week, all year crunching numbers looking for who won what when and by how much and the answer still comes out the same. The election is over. Let’s move on. And there hasn’t been a George Washington since George Washington. 
 
Oh, and go clean up those yard signs.
 
 
 
 

The truth, the whole truth, and anything but the truth

Michael 1 Comment
Even in the midst of world wide crises, nation wide closures, and seeming interstate competition of who can develop the most animosity among neighboring states by being either ridiculously lenient or unnecessarily harsh with their approach to virus control, US Presidential elections go on and with them the quadrennial exercise in truth stretching, whopper telling, and general misrepresentation we call political ads.
 
My memory goes back only as far as the 1964 election (I was here for the ’56 and ’60 go ’rounds but I was more interested in the Ringling Brothers’ version of three ring circuses those years) but I can tell you without a doubt, to my knowledge the only occupant of the Oval Office to get there without casting aspersions on his opponent’s reputed good name was Gerald Ford.
 
I suspect it will be nastier than usual this year what with so many people having nothing better to do than to get on social media and join in with the professional besmirching. Truth goes out the window when people spend over 2 billion dollars (yes, that is a “b”) to get a temporary job than pays a mere $400,000 a year. (To give you a little perspective, that is less the minimum salary for all the major American sports leagues and well less than half the minimum NBA salary. As the old saying goes, but they had a better year.) 
 
You would think with that kind of money floating around people would be able to find something their candidate did right to qualify him or her for the position rather than using it to dig up what the opposition did wrong. Or often, to fabricate something that looks like wrong doing. As I wrote 4 years ago, there is actually a regulation that forbids any media outlet from vetting, editing, or refusing a Presidential political ad regardless of content. Truth. The Campaign Reform Act of 2002 takes pains to not mandate the veracity or any requirement to confirm the veracity of any claim made in a campaign ad. With the party conventions about a month away and the election another 3 months after that, the airways, social outlets, mailboxes, and road sides will soon be overflowing with effluent.
 
This is where I usually wrappings up with some pithy saying or on rare occasions actual insight. Sorry, but for this mess I got nothing. I’ll borrow a line from old TV. While you’re out on the mean and nasty streets of American politics in a Presidential election year, remember, be careful out there.
 
truth

An All American Special Edition

Michael Leave a comment

It’s not Monday. It’s not Thursday. Why is there a Real Reality post today? Because it’s Presidential Debate #3. Before you go running off, stick with me for just a minute. This is NOT a “political” post, it is NOT an endorsement, it is NOT a rant. It’s a plea to the American readers to stop and take a breath. I can’t take listening to the rants of everybody else – door knockers, phone callers, TV ads, political “experts,” and the so-call politicians themselves about how unfit these choices are.

Stop! I don’t care if you are fervently supporting one or the other, if you use your head and are truly honest to yourself, you see it too.

Look, every election from the second one has had at least one candidate harping on why the other candidate(s) is and/or are unfit for the office. But this has to be the first time that there have been NO ads by a candidate extolling past positive results by him or herself. If you were in the position to hire an employee for your workplace would you sit through an interview where the candidate never speaks to his or her past results but rather details the reasons why the other applicants are irresponsible choices and you shouldn’t have even ever considered them? Likewise, it you were applying for a job that comes with a guaranteed four year contract and the option for a similar extension, would you not probably spend as much time and energy as possible documenting your past work experience, successes, references, and plans for advancement?

For as many elections as I remember I have heard people say “I don’t like John Doe so I’m going to vote for Joe Smith.” But again, perhaps for the first time, are there television ads of people saying “I don’t agree with [fill in the blank, they’ve both run them], but I just can’t vote for [t’other one] so I’m going to vote for someone I really don’t care for either.” I’m sure when each party saw who the other party was going to nominate for president cheers went up around the wargames tables. And then when each party saw who their party was going to nominate for president eyebrows went up.

You know, there actually are other choices. On the presidential ballot in every state there will be a third candidate. Yep, if you really can’t see yourself brushing the touch screen (does anybody still have levers?) for Clinton or Trump you can consider Johnson. In at least 45 states (as of the end of last month, perhaps more by Election Day) you can also consider Stein. Don’t know who those other two are? You won’t see them on tonight’s debate any more than you’ll see any rational discussion of platforms, policies, or proposals. Plop them into your favorite search engine and search.

I meant what I said when I began this post. This is NOT an endorsement. I don’t mean to tell you that you should consider voting for a third, or a fourth party candidate. What I do mean to tell you is that if you are really going to make your vote count you better be making that vote based on something other than sound bites, attack ads, and non-debates. It takes more than just voting to do your civic duty. It takes casting an informed vote.

That’s what I think. Really. How ‘bout you?

The First Shall be Last

Michael Leave a comment

Now that the “major party” conventions are over the ads and pundits (neither having anything to do with reality) can begin. It was less than a week ago that news broadcasts, outlets, websites, feeds, and editors began remarking on the nation’s first woman candidate for president. Someone even went so far as to note that this fall, the US voters will get to cast ballots for their first woman, first outsider, or first third party president. And that on the heels of the outgoing first African-America president. Actually, none of those labels are correct. I’ll ‘splain that later. First, let’s look at some legitimate firsts that really have happened over this last year.

Actually the first first hasn’t officially happened yet but some games have already taken place and the opening ceremonies will take center stage tomorrow night in Rio. That first is the first Olympic games to be held in South America. The odds have been against that particular continent since the games re-appeared in 1896. That’s because South America is almost completely in the Southern Hemisphere. In the 120 year history of the modern Olympics this is only the third time the summer games have been held in the Southern Hemisphere. (The other two times have both been in Australia.) The Winter Olympics have never taken place south of the Equator.

The second first just happened in the past few days and it got very little press even within the United States which is odd since every news broadcast, outlet, website, etc., etc. was so big on talking about firsts. That news was that for the first time the Center for Disease Control released a travel advisory for within the US encouraging travelers not to do so in South Florida. They even came up with some suggestions for the people who live there – try to stay inside.

The third first is (and here let’s dispense with individually numbering each first and collectively address all the remaining firsts as “remaining firsts begin with”) Cuba now has wireless internet service for the first time. Sticking with computers, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a drug manufactured by 3D printing for the first time. (High dose Levetiracetam for epilepsy). Still with computers but heading back south, the Rio Olympics will be the first games where every event will be available somewhere on-line.  In entertainment of a different kind, a film grossed over 500 million dollars in its opening weekend for the first time (Jurassic World). And speaking of DNA (Jurassic World, remember) human trials on T-cell augmented cancer treatments using the body’s own cells to fight cancer began this year. And if you want to write about that and be grammatically correct while addressing a particular test subject without knowing his or her sex, you may now officially use the third person singular and not be chastised by your grade school English teacher.

So the next time you have to hear about the first woman running for president consider that there have been 5 women nominated by recognized political parties on general election ballots for president. In fact, 1884 the Equal Rights Party presented an all woman ticket for president and vice president. And the next time you have to hear about the first outsider running for president consider that four sitting presidents never held an elected position before being elected president. And when you next hear of how a third party candidate could win this year’s election consider that of the 44 elected presidents, only 30 have been republicans or democrats. One (Washington) had no party affiliation (and yes, there were political parties then), and one (Tyler) changed parties while in office.

If you should hear about any of these “firsts” feel free to mention to the speaker to not worry, there are lots of other real firsts going on all around us. All they have to do is pick their head out of their – ummm… All you have to do is look.

That’s what I think. Really. How ‘bout you?

Joe for President

Michael Leave a comment

We were talking the morning after the most recent Presidential Debate and came up with this question.  What would it be like if somebody ran for President who really wanted the job for the sake of the job.  Just a regular folk who decided to run for office.  No party affiliation, no special interest backing, no family legacy, no cultural impetus.  Just somebody who wants to be President.

You’d have to go back to the Washington/Adams election of 1788 to find someone who had to be talked into running for the office.  You certainly have to go back that far to find an election not controlled by political parties.  And then it was only one of the candidates, one G. Washington, who did not declare allegiance with a party.  That would be one out of 12 candidates.  All eleven others were affiliated with a political party.    

Back to our question though, what would it be like if the people who were running for President were just regular folks who decided to run for office?  Even back in 1788 you could hardly have called any of the candidates “just regular folk.”  Of the twelve there were 3 governors, 2 former governors, the U. S. Secretary of War, the U. S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the former Minister to Great Britain (Adams) and the former Commander in Chief of the Continental Army (Washington). 

Perhaps our backyards will give us a taste of what it would be like.  Although the United States is home to some of the largest cities in the world, there are many, many much smaller municipalities, all with municipal governments.  Some of the smallest might have only a single elected official, a mayor or an executive.  Some of the larger but still small communities have 3, 5, or 9 member boards of supervisors or commissioners.  Most of these officials serve for 4 or 6 year terms and if paid at all might consider their pay handsome if it makes it into three digits.  That’s for the entire year.  They decided to run because a road was bad, a sewer didn’t exist, a street light was ill-placed, or a developer was going to chop down a tree.  Their plights were real, their concerns legitimate, their opposition often fierce, and their recognition often absent.  But week after week, after working their 40 hours at a full time job they spend another 12 or 20 hours balancing the decision to buy the new police car against bargaining the new municipal tax service contract.  They have to appoint neighbors to the planning commission while explaining to other neighbors that they appointed someone else.  They spend hours deciphering the language to the ordinance restricting on-street parking during the winter so the snow plow can get through sufficient to explain it in 5 words or less on a too small and still too expensive sign.  They are just regular folks.  Working an irregular job. 

Perhaps if these men and women would ever want to run for President we might be able to elect a Chief Executive who understands taxes both from paying and spending.  Perhaps we can send someone to Washington whose new salary would mean a pay raise.  Instead these fine people want to stay local and help local issues.  The regular folks want to stay home.  With the folks.  Instead we get the people whose idea of an entry level political job is a term or two in the Senate or having been appointed Secretary of Something Useless by the President from two terms ago.

In 1788 George Washington agreed to run for President but would declare no party affiliation.  In fact, he hoped there would not be the formation of, or influence by political parties because it would lead to another thing to divide the people.  He took an office that came with the very large for the eighteenth century salary of $25,000.  Washington was already a very rich man and was going to refuse the salary.  He was convinced by members of Congress to take his pay so there would not be a precedent set that only the rich could become President.  It’s a shame that neither his hope that there would not be battling political parties nor that those other than the very rich could become President ever came true.

If just regular folks were to become President maybe we’d have a Leader who understands the difference between surplus food sent to countries who support violence against Americans and surplus food sent to schools for breakfast and lunch so the schools can still afford gym and music classes.  Maybe they would understand that you can’t appoint your brother in law the Secretary of Everything Outdoors when somebody else really understands that preservation, conservation, and recreation are more than words that rhyme.  Maybe we would have a President who isn’t afraid to tell the people when we’re in some pretty big financial trouble and all of us have to tighten our belts and include people whose work address ends in Washington, DC among the belt tighteners.

If just regular folks were to become President maybe we’d have a leader who knows you can’t be loyal to the people who voted for you and still answer to the party who picked you to be voted for.  If just regular folks were to become President we’d not have to legislate term limits.  They would be satisfied with the job they did after one or two rounds and would know it’s time to go back home with the other folks and get back to being just regular.

Maybe we did have a Just Regular Folk become President.  It was a while ago but the more we read about George Washington the more we’d like to have dinner with him.  And isn’t that the best judge of who’s just a regular Joe?  We mean George.

Now, that’s what we think.  Really.  How ‘bout you?

 

 

Party Planning

Michael Leave a comment

Now that the conventions are over, the tickets are official, the platforms are assembled, the debates have begun, the candidates have spoken, the has-beens have spoken, the wannabes have spoken, the wives have spoken, the television pundits have spoken, — not much has been said.  We’re still sure we don’t like either of these unwise men.  And we’re still convinced our best choice is not between them (see None of the Above, August 13, 2012).  But we have a bit more clarity of the why we don’t like either of these party-ites.

It’s because they are party-ites.  They are the stereotypes of what we’ve come to imagine the parties are actually about. 

Willard Mitt Romney is the ultimate rich man.  Named for the family friend Willard Marriott of “The” Marriotts  and the famous don’t-tell-me-you-didn’t-know-him relative Milton Romney who played quarterback for the Chicago Bears in the 1920’s, is undoubtedly a rich man.  With or without tax returns this is a guy who bought entire companies like normal people buy entire kitchen knife sets.  He owns multiple houses, is alternately referred to as a “consultant” and a “venture capitalist,” and went to Harvard.  Even Republicans can’t identify with him because most Republicans aren’t rich.  He may have come off winning the debate but mostly because he was debating a real loser.

Barrack Hussain Obama, II is the quintessential Democrat mostly because the Democrats told us so. He is African American born of a Kenyan father and a white lady from Kansas (ok, so part African American), he has one house other than the White House, his religion is simply Christian, and he began his law career as a civil rights lawyer.  They don’t always mention that he received his undergraduate degree from Columbia and his law degree also from Harvard and if they do, then it’s in the context of isn’t it great that a black man can go to Ivy League Universities too.  He has also worked as a consultant, and is a published author.  In fact, he’s made about $6 million from his and his wife’s book sales and that one house they live in (other than the White House) is worth $1.65 million.  His performance at the debate was more of one being forced to a book signing rather than one who understood what he wrote.

Neither of these puppies is what the politicos want you to think of them.  The Republicans have got to stop nominating people who flaunt their millions of dollars in the public’s face.  The Democrats have got to stop nominating people who have so many millions they can’t hide them all and often meet the Republican stereotype better than most of the Republicans. 

Less than an hour after the conclusion of the debate, as close to what we have as “legitimate news outlets” were pointing out the misleading statements, almost-truths, half-truths, and “just plain not right” uttered between the banter and the mockery.  Neither of these party-ites resembles Lincoln or Jackson.  It’s a sad fact that probably some of those who call themselves Democrat or Republican can’t identify which is which nor which side either was on during the debate.  

If they should figure out their true directions then we may consider what the major parties’ candidates have to say about some of the important issues going on in the country.  Until then, we’ll stick with “none of the above” and find someone who will.

Now, that’s what we think.  Really.  How ‘bout you?

 

None Of The Above

Michael 1 Comment

About a week ago, She of We received a phone survey regarding the upcoming Presidential election.  Buried among other questions was the crux of the survey, and the crux of the matter. “If the election was held today, would you vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?”  Why only two choices?

That’s the problem with this entire election.  This and several before.  We are presented with two candidates for a job neither has the qualifications for.  And we have to make a choice.  So here is our choice.  None of the above, but far from nobody.

In the beginning, all ballots were written, and all candidates were write-in.  Even then there were political parties but the emphasis 230-some years ago was policy, not party.  Those who voted did so for a person and his policy, not for how slick the party made their candidate sound or how incompetent they attempted to make others appear.  And when the elector determined for whom he would cast his ballot, he placed pen to paper and committed his vote to writing. 

We want to bring it back.  Not just the write-in part, but the whole thought behind the election process.  This is supposed to be our head of state.  Do we want our solver of domestic problems, our representative to the world determined by a sound bite, a hair color, a slogan, or an accusation?  We fully intend to consider all the possible candidates – everyone who has ever said at some point that he or she intends to serve the American public and then acted in a manner that reflected true selfless service.  We will fully consider our priorities for the executive process.  It probably won’t be health care, gay marriage, or who has more friends on his or her Facebook page.  It will be what affects us.  It will be probably what affects everybody if everybody would listen to themselves rather than the party campaign ads.  Then when we find who will work to our best interest, will we cast our vote.  It will certainly be a write in.

Will this really prove anything?  If two people spend a lot of time and effort and write in two very serious leaders, no, it won’t prove anything.  But if you join us we can be heard.  If you really don’t like the choices the parties have given you, then don’t vote for them.  But please, don’t just not vote.  Do your research.  Find your best leader.  Then cast your vote for your best choice.

If you can convince a few others to do likewise, then do it.  On Election Day we could have a million people, maybe 10 million people voting for a leader rather than for the less of two evils.  Vote for the greatest candidate you know.   We know we won’t all vote for the same person.  There could be 10 million different write in candidates.  But that will be 10 million people who have told the parties that we are through with their idea of electability.  We don’t need a candidate.  We need a President.  We need a leader.

If we vote like it really matters we can make a difference, and we have to start voting like it really matters.

Now, that’s what we think.  Really.  How ‘bout you?