LOADING CLOSE

042318 Is there probable cause to suspect foul play in the 2016 election results?

042318 Is there probable cause to suspect foul play in the 2016 election results?

The trigger for suspecting foul play is the claim by Democrats, RINOs and talking heads in the media that they were shocked by the election outcome.  Yeah, just like Captain Renault was shocked (SHOCKED, he said!) to learn that gambling was going on in Rick’s Place in the movie Casablanca.

Let’s examine that claim.  Start with the 206 electoral votes in Red states that Romney won in 2012.  Is it SHOCKING that Trump held on to those 206?  Of course not.  Red state voters were a lot more enthusiastic about Trump than we were for Romney.  Okay, so we’ve got Trump at 206 with no shock.

Next, what about Florida’s 29 electoral votes?  Obama took FL vs. Romney, but it was relatively close and competitive.  Trump demonstrated a strong home field advantage in FL by walloping Rubio in the primary.  Is it a shock that the candidate with a strong home field advantage wins the state?  Of course not.  Clinton took IL, Pence took IN, Kaine took VA, Clinton’s home field advantage in NY was evidently stronger than Trump’s so she took NY … and Trump took FL.  So now Trump is at 235 with no shock.

Next, let’s consider PA and OH with 38 electoral votes combined.  Two major coal-producing states, with a large oil-patch and manufacturing presence as well.  In other words, lots of jobs intimately tied to fossil fuels.  Clinton told them that she would put a lot more coal miners out of business, and that we needed to move away from all fossil fuels.  So she was asking the people of PA and OH to vote to destroy their own jobs.

Well, they said “No thanks!” and voted to keep their jobs.  Is that a shock?  Is it really a shock that people would vote to keep their jobs rather than destroy them?  Of course there’s no shock at that.

Now, we can put it in the most complimentary way possible and say that Mrs. Clinton had the courage of her convictions and took a big risk.  She believes the nation needs to make a dramatic shift away from fossil fuels toward green energy, so she asked the people of PA and OH to vote to destroy their own jobs.  Courageous and genuine, yes.  Risky, yes.

But is it a SHOCK that people voted to keep their jobs?  No.

So we’ve got Trump at 273 electoral votes with no shock.  Then there’s MI, WI, MN and IA.  Clinton lost three out of the four in the primary, then made no effort to improve her performance (she didn’t set foot in MI or WI, according to press reports) … so she lost three out of the four again in the general.  Is that a shock, that when we fall short on our first attempt and then make no effort to improve … we fall short again on the second attempt?  Of course not, there’s no shock in that.  Do you teach your kids or employees to make no effort to improve after they fall short in their first attempt at something?

There was no probable cause to suspect foul play, no probable cause to be shocked at the outcome.

 

ERpundit  –  04/23/2018

Comments are closed.