Archive for the ‘Elections’ Category

You’d think that a Fordham-educated politician like Andrew Cuomo would be able to understand simple math. Apparently, that’s above his pay grade. According to this article, Gov. Cuomo either is too dishonest to tell New Yorkers that his policies have led to this looming crisis or he’s too beholden to the environmental activists to do the right thing for the average New Yorker.

New York, California and Minnesota especially need to stop with their outright disdain for fossil fuels and mining. It isn’t healthy but it is counterproductive. Here’s what’s happening in New York:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo doubled down last week on his blame-the-messenger approach to New York’s growing shortage of natural-gas supplies by ordering the Department of Public Service to “broaden its investigation” of National Grid and threatening to “find another franchisee.” Anything, rather than admit that his own policies are at fault.

The utility has stopped taking new gas customers in parts of Long Island, Brooklyn and Queens where it can’t handle the new demand — because Team Cuomo vetoed the proposed Williams pipeline to bring in supplies from New Jersey. (Jersey is also blocking the pipeline, since Gov. Phil Murphy is appeasing the same green extremists.)

National Grid gave months of warning that it would need to impose the moratorium if fresh supplies weren’t ensured. Con Ed did the same in advance of its recent new-biz moratorium in most of Westchester, which was also prompted in good part by the nixing of new pipelines.

Gov. Cuomo’s policies are mainstream Democrat policies. That’s the problem. In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 2,000,000 voters, idiotic ideas can pass because they’re that month’s flavor-of-the-month trend. It doesn’t matter if the policy hurts 200,000-400,000 people. If it’s trending in popularity, that’s what matters in New York. Whether it fixes anything is irrelevant. This is what Gov. Cuomo gets excited about:

That photo says one thing to him — reelection. That’s all he cares about. He won’t care about the crisis until it hits. Even then, he’ll do as little to fix the problem as possible. Most likely, if he acts, it will be a short-term fix.

Democrats aren’t about doing what’s right for the long-term. They’re mostly about maintaining power.

Democrats are constantly complaining about Republicans suppressing the vote. Stacey Abrams isn’t the latest in a long line of Democrat complainers on the subject. AOC is the latest in that line. AOC is calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, insisting that the system is “racist.”

First, the Electoral College won’t be abolished because it would require a bunch of small states to ratify a constitutional amendment that’d render their states politically irrelevant. That’s just one of the reasons the Electoral College won’t be abolished. The other reason it won’t happen is because the odds of the constitutional amendment getting that far are tinier than slim. To send a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification, the amendment must 290 votes in the House, then get 67 votes in the Senate. That’s provided that the wording in both amendments is identical. If there’s any differences, those would have to be ironed out before proceeding to the ratification phase.

Talk about microscopic odds.

Ultimately, though, what Democrats are proposing is the ultimate disenfranchisement of voters. States like Kansas, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Iowa, Idaho, Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire, to name a few, would become politically irrelevant. With campaign finances being finite, why waste money courting voters in Montana, Iowa, the Dakotas and Maine? Further, abolishing the Electoral College would mean candidates wouldn’t have to think about multiple demographic groups. Democrats could focus on East and Left Coast elitists and ignore the blue collar voters in the Rust Belt. How does that maintain the United States of America?

It’s worth noting that we have a federal government, not a national government. The federal government didn’t exist until the states created it. Democrats won’t admit that they want all power centered in Washington, DC but that’s the truth of it. The Founding Fathers, whom I consider to be the greatest collection of leaders in one place in the history of humankind, wanted the government’s power decentralized. The Tenth Amendment even went so far as to say that the responsibilities not given to the federal government by the Constitution were reserved to the states and (gasp!) the people.

Frankly, why would I trust AOC’s ramblings over the thoughtfulness of Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Washington and Madison? Rather than trusting her, Id rather instruct her to read this so she’d understand how to prevent tyranny. I’d also recommend she debate Dana Perino. Perino would slice and dice her into hundreds of tiny pieces if she just did this:

I agree with Tucker when he said that he has “no doubt” that Dana Perino would defeat any debater who accepted Dana’s challenge to debate the merits of the Electoral College. Further, I agree with Tucker’s statement that Democrats like AOC don’t want to debate the substantive issues. Democrats like AOC prefer labeling things racist, thereby eliminating the need for debate.

By eliminating the Electoral College, Democrats are proposing the biggest disenfranchisement of voters in US history. That’s shameful. It needs to stop immediately.

AOC and other Democrats hate the Electoral College because they either don’t understand history or they hate the system that the Founders gave us. I suspect that it’s a little of both. Determining presidential (notice that I didn’t say national) elections based on the popular vote would turn elections on their head. I’m writing this post to expose AOC’s foolish plan to eliminate the electoral college.

Our government in DC is called the federal government, not the national government. The federation that the federal government is built from is the federation of states. That’s why our nation is called the United States of America. Each state is sovereign. Without the states’ consent, there isn’t a federal government.

The purpose of the federal government is to represent the states. It wasn’t created to represent just the people. Had the Founding Fathers wanted that, they wouldn’t have formed the states. For instance, when the colonists won the Revolutionary War, France recognized each colony as a sovereign nation.

Apparently, AOC hasn’t grasped the concept that the United States is built on the foundation of each state being sovereign. That’s why each state’s laws are unique to that state. No 2 states have identical statutes on how they pay for education or economic development or whatever the subject. Each state has different laws on what constitutes manslaughter or sexual assault.

AOC’s desire to get rid of the Electoral College is partially because she wants to win more elections but it’s also partially because she doesn’t understand the foundation that the Constitution was built on. When the Revolutionary War ended, the federal government didn’t exist. The colonies eventually created the federal government out of convenience and necessity. It was convenient in the sense that the President was authorized to negotiate treaties and trade agreements rather than each state being required to negotiate separate trade deals. It was built out of necessity in that the settlers needed someone to provide for the national defense.

The Founding Fathers wanted the states to be the “laboratories of democracy.” They wrote the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to keep as much power as close to the families as possible. Here’s the text of the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Here’s the text of the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AOC’s push for electing presidents by popular vote is understandable from a partisan standpoint. Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst pointed this out:


In AOC’s mind, the Electoral College is — brace yourself — racist. Actually, it prevents some of the states who created the federal government from being represented by the federal government. That’s beyond foolish.

People pushing the national popular vote initiative aren’t interested in the US’s Heartland, aka Flyover Country. It’s time to push these idiots off the national stage. They aren’t rational human beings. Either that or they’re exceptionally despicable people.

The Electoral College isn’t outdated. It just isn’t wanted by progressive elitists who think of the men and women of America’s Heartland as unsophisticated rubes. That sounds frighteningly similar to Barack Obama when he said this:

When Bernie Sanders told CNN that terrorists serving a life sentence and rapists should have the right to vote, Jesse Watters said that it was essentially the equivalent of Willie Horton 2.0. For those who are too young to know who Willie Horton is and what role he played in presidential politics, check out the 1988 election between George H.W. Bush and Democratic Gov. Michael Dukakis. Hint: it didn’t end well for Democrats.

This pandering (don’t kid yourself; that’s what this was) isn’t helping Sanders win the Democratic nomination. When you’re a Democrat and you’ve lost Cher, you’re in a difficult position. That’s where Sanders finds himself.

According to the article, “Cher took to Twitter Tuesday afternoon to sound off on Sanders’ position in a since-deleted tweet. The Hollywood icon defended her stance, telling one of her critics that any convicted child molesters, rapists, or murderers of any race should not ‘keep [their] right to vote.'” I wholeheartedly agree.

Sanders’ explanation is timid at best:

“This is what I believe. Do you believe in democracy? Do you believe that every single American 18 years of age or older who is an American citizen has the right to vote?” Sanders later said. “This is a democracy. We’ve got to expand that democracy and I believe that every single person does have the right to vote.”

Actually, low voter turnout in a election is often a positive thing. When turnout is high, it’s often because people are mad as hell at the politicians. Occasionally, turnout is high because one side or the other finds a charismatic candidate. That doesn’t happen that often.

In 1994, Republicans turned out in huge numbers because they supported Newt’s Contract With America. In 2010, Republicans turned out in big numbers because Democrat politicians ignored them while shoving the ACA down our throats.

The point is that turnout often drops when people are satisfied. When I led the Vote No movement against the first Tech High School bonding referendum, turnout was high. The school board didn’t notice that their referendum was in trouble until the returns started coming in. By then, it was too late. The referendum was doomed because I helped expose the school board’s agenda.

Watch Bernie make a fool of himself:

Don’t buy into the notion that the problems encountered during Florida’s recount were systemic or mechanical. That’s the conclusion I reached after I read this investigative article.

I’m being charitable if I say that Broward County’s management is ineffective. I’d call them the ‘county that can’t shoot straight’ but that wouldn’t be accurate. Remember that when the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting happened in Broward County, the deputies refused to enter the building, much less confront the shooter.

Think about this: 2 of the biggest stories this year happened in Broward County, FL. The Parkland shooting and the FL recount highlighted Broward County’s mismanagement. With the Parkland shooting, Sheriff Israel’s ineptitude was highlighted. With the recount, Dr. Brenda Snipes’ ineptitude was highlighted.

That said, Palm Beach County’s recount wasn’t a picture of perfection, either:

“It became evident through the vigorous pace of counting that the machines used for the recount were starting to get stressed,” Palm Beach County Elections Supervisor Susan Bucher told reporters last week.

In a further twist, the company behind the Palm Beach machines says official claims that they overheated are false. “The idea that this equipment is at fault is a mischaracterization,” Kay Stimson, vice president of government affairs for Dominion Voting Systems, told RealClearInvestigations. “There were no reports of overheating machines during the recount. We had engineers on the ground there, available 24/7, and they heard nothing from anyone at Palm Beach County.”

This is fantastic news:

Good riddance. As a good friend often says, “Don’t let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.’ By the time the recount finished, pretty much the only people still supporting Dr. Snipes were relatives. Gov. DeSantis will pick Dr. Snipes’ replacement.

Lost in all the shouting about Brenda Snipes’ ineptitude and corruption was the fact that Florida completed its gubernatorial recount on time. Lost in the shuffle is the fact that Ron DeSantis is the all-but-official Governor-Elect of Florida. He isn’t officially the Governor-Elect until Florida’s Secretary of State signs the document saying he’s Florida’s next governor.

It’s worth noting, though, before going forward that Broward County missed the recount deadline by 2 minutes even though they completed the machine recount a little after midnight Thursday night. (The deadline was 3:00 pm ET.)

While we’re at this point in history, it’s time to inspect all the flaws in Florida’s election system. The most important thing that must be done is to rewrite the recount laws. For example, in the governor’s race, 8,000,000+ votes were cast. DeSantis’ margin of victory was .41% or 33,000+ votes.

Let’s admit that there isn’t a snowball’s prayer in hell of overturning an election with a margin that big. Further, let’s admit that machine recounts are the most accurate recounts known to man. Finally, let’s admit that, while .41% sounds close, it isn’t when you’re talking about 8,000,000 votes.

I’d even argue that .25% on a statewide race is beyond overturning. In the Florida Senate race, Bill Nelson trails by 12,603 votes or .18%. There isn’t a snowball’s prayer in hell that Nelson will close that gap in any meaningful way.

The lesson is that Florida should rewrite their statewide recount laws to say automatic recounts aren’t triggered unless the margin is less than 1,500 votes. Even then, it’s doubtful that they’d overturn that election.

While we can’t outlaw the term ‘count every vote’, it’s totally acceptable to highlight the fact that nobody opposes the counting of legally cast ballots. Highlight the fact that Democrats can’t provide proof that any vote anywhere hasn’t been counted. Question Democrats on the details. Ask them if any of the ballots in any county in Florida, whether they were absentee ballots, early ballots or ballots cast on ‘Election Day’ weren’t counted.

Finally, Florida and other states should put in place strict rules for interpreting a voter’s intent on undercounts or overcounts. Trying to diving the voter’s intent is as trustworthy as picking winning lottery numbers.

Congratulations to Gov-Elect DeSantis for keeping Florida in Republican control.

Ed Morrissey’s post on the Florida recounts should become required reading. As Ed highlights in his posts, changing the outcome of statewide races is virtually impossible.

In his post, Ed highlights the fact that “According to an analysis by the nonpartisan group FairVote, which advocates for electoral reforms that make it easier to vote, out of 4,687 statewide elections between 2000 and 2016, just 26 went to a recount. Of those 26, just three recounts wound up changing the initial result of the race: The 2004 Washington governor’s race, the 2006 Vermont state auditor’s race and the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race.”

While I don’t have statistics on recounts of legislative races, the odds aren’t high. I have experience with legislative recounts. It isn’t extensive but it’s something. In 2008, I was part of a team working on the recount of a state senate race. In that race, with over 35,000 votes cast, the margin of victory was reduced by 1 vote. In 2010, my state legislator won by 13 votes. That margin didn’t change.

The only way to change the victor is to illegitimately expand the universe of ballots to be counted. Once the Broward County judge ordered the reports published, the Senate recount essentially ended. Based on the reporting, it looked like Marc Elias, Sen. Bill Nelson’s recount attorney, tried doing exactly that. That’s why Rick Scott’s decision to file a pair of lawsuits last week was so important.

Gov. Scott didn’t hesitate like Norm Coleman did in 2008. The importance of those lawsuits, which required Broward County elections supervisor Brenda Snipes to hand over the vote totals reports to authorities, determined how many ballots had been cast. That eliminated the possibility of ‘finding’ additional ballots. Once those reports became public, Bill Nelson and, especially, Andrew Gillum, were sunk.

This video explains why Floridians will be significantly better off after Gov. Scott officially becomes Sen. Scott:

Sen. Nelson hasn’t done much legislatively to help Floridians in his time in the Senate. Good riddance. BTW, now that he’s lost the governor’s race, Andrew Gillum will have more time to meet with defense attorneys in his potential corruption trial.

John Feehery’s op-ed talks about 2018 in a way I hadn’t seen prior to tonight. Feehery opens his op-ed by saying “Money, message and ultimately the map, in equal measures. That’s what wins political campaigns.” I couldn’t agree more.

Back in 2011, I wrote lots of articles about redistricting. The effects of redistricting didn’t highlight themselves in 2012 because that was a presidential election. In 2014, they showed up when Republicans flipped the House. This year, redistricting is likely to kill the national Democrats’ wave. The GOP landslide of 2010 wasn’t just about winning 63 net seats in the US House. It went well beyond that. When I wrote this post, I wrote about watching the Journal Editorial Report. During the show, they said “Republicans gained 680 state legislative seats in last Tuesday’s elections.
According to their map, Republicans control both houses of their state legislatures in 25 states. Here’s the list of states where Republicans control both houses of the legislature: Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Michigan, Indiana, Alabama, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, Maine, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina and New Hampshire.”

That meant Republicans had full control of the redistricting process. That, in turn, meant that they could strengthen the marginal districts that they just won. Fast forward to Feehery’s op-ed, in which he said this:

Finally, there is the map. Republicans have a distinct national advantage going into this election. As Mother Jones reported in March, “A new report from the Brennan Center for Justice calculates just how much of a landslide Democrats will need in order to win in districts that were drawn specifically to withstand Democratic waves and elect Republicans. The result, report co-author Michael Li says, should be a ‘reality check’ for Democrats.” To win the House, the Democrats would have to win the popular vote by 11 points, according to this left-leaning organization.

Is that possible? Yes. Probably? No.

Let me rephrase that in my own way. Is that possible? No. Is that possible? Not a snowball’s prayer in hell.

Apparently, the DFL hasn’t figured out what it believes, other than believing in acquiring power. A pair of bills in the Senate illustrate this perfectly. SF2959 is a gun control bill. Here’s the language for one of the main provisions in the bill:

The following persons shall not be entitled to possess
ammunition or a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon or, except for clause
(1), any other firearm:
(1) a person under the age of 18 21 years except that:
(i) a person under 18 who is 18 years of age or older may possess a pistol;
(ii) a person under the age of 21 years may possess ammunition designed for use in a
firearm that the person may lawfully possess and ;
(iii) a person under the age of 18 years may carry or possess a pistol or semiautomatic
military-style assault weapon (i) :

In other words, people under the age of 21 aren’t capable of handling a firearm. That bill was submitted by Sen. Latz, the most prolific DFL gun-grabber in the Senate. SF3453 was submitted by Sandy Pappas. It’s a proposed constitutional amendment. Here’s the ballot question that would be on the ballot if this passes (it won’t) the House and Senate:

Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to allow persons 16 or more years of age
to vote in state and local elections?

Yes __________

No __________

In other words, Sen. Latz would prohibit a 20-year-old single mother from protecting herself or her family but Sen. Pappas thinks 16-year-olds are mature enough to make informed decisions and vote? That’s twisted logic on steroids.

Actually, it isn’t difficult to figure out what the DFL is thinking. First, they want tons of uninformed voters flooding the system. It’s the only way they can win elections. Next, the DFL wants to control people’s lives. Raising the minimum age for buying a gun won’t solve any problems but it will give government more control of people’s lives. Controlling people is part of the DFL’s DNA.

When Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the indictments of 13 Russians and “3 Russian entities”, Rosenstein specifically said “There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in this indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome.”

Somewhere, Adam Schiff is likely crying in his beer.

The indictment itself specifically states that a company called “Internet Research Agency, LLC” was created in 2014, long before the presidential campaign started. Further, the indictment states that the Russians plan was a) sophisticated enough to fool American political activists that the activists thought they were dealing with other like-minded American activists. The Russians’ goal was to sow distrust.

On one day, Nov. 12, 2016, the defendants organized a rally in New York to “show your support for President-elect Donald Trump” while at the same time organizing a “Trump is NOT my president rally” that also was held in New York.

While this indictment doesn’t totally clear the Trump campaign, it’s definitely a defeat for the Democrats, especially Rep. Schiff. Schiff has invested tons of time in front of TV cameras insisting that he’d seen proof that Trump colluded with Russians.

This is the biggest news from the special counsel’s office thus far. Not only does it not accuse the Trump campaign of colluding with Russians, it states that people from Trump’s campaign “unwittingly” participated in the Russians’ plot:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said the defendants created hundreds of accounts using fake personas on the social media platforms Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to advance their scheme. One example of that was the Twitter account “Tennessee GOP,” which used the handle @TEN_GOP,” and “which falsely claimed to be controlled by a U.S. state political party,” the indictment said. “Over time, the @TEN_GOP account attracted more than 100,000 online followers.”

The defendants also allegedly used a “computer infrastructure, based partly in the United States, to hide the Russian origin of their activities and to avoid detection” by US authorities, the indictment said.

It isn’t a stretch to think that this plot achieved its goal, which was to create distrust in our election.

What’s sad is that the MSM is totally content with sowing additional distrust with their ‘reporting’.