RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Does Trump Have a Mandate? - RightNation.US

Jump to content

-----

Does Trump Have a Mandate?

First, let's dispense with the notion that he "lost" the popular vote. I ran the numbers. Clinton spent $21 per vote. Trump spent $13. There were 123 million total votes. That's .06 votes per dollar. If Trump spent the same per vote as Hillary, he would have gotten over 90 million votes. Someone check my math.

Illogical? This time of year, high school juniors all over the country are learning about how rich industrialists like J.P. Morgan "bought" the 1896 presidential election by helping William McKinley outspend William Jennings Bryan two to one. Check your kids' textbooks. It's in there.

So, which is it? Does money buy elections or doesn't it? When I kept reading about how little Trump was spending on his campaign, I thought we were being played. There was no way this guy who's supposed to be so rich and so obsessed with winning was trying to win this thing on the cheap. Unless he was a plant trying to throw the contest and let Hillary win more easily than if she had to run against a serious Republican. Why did I think this? Because I had been taught, like every other American who studied American history, that money buys elections. Everyone knew this.

It wasn't true, was it?

Obviously, Trump wouldn't have gotten a full 90 million votes if he had matched Clinton's spending. But do you doubt that he'd have gotten north of three million more? If he'd have spent $700 million in just California alone, he might not have won, but he'd have picked up several million votes.

She didn't win the popular vote, she lost the electoral college vote.

Second, it's not even about Trump's victory necessarily. Eight years ago, the Democrats owned the House of Representatives 255-179 and controlled the Senate 59-41. Given the fact that two of the Republican senators were from Maine, it meant a virtually filibuster proof Senate. Since then, the GOP has flipped it and now control the House 247-187 and the Senate 54-44. Worse for the Democrats, 33 states have Republican governors and in 32 states, the GOP controls both houses of state legislature.

The Democrats had their chance. They had all three branches and a near filibuster proof senate. But they blew it. People can talk popular vote all they want, but the Democrats failed to deliver. You ought to do yourself a favor and read Money Well Spent? by Michael Grabell and brush up on how insanely and hilariously badly Obama and the Democrats screwed up the $800 billion stimulus. If ever there was a case of over-promising and under-delivering, that was it. Pundits and economists might claim it got us out of the Great Recession, but the American people--especially those in the Rust Belt--know that the Democrats blew it. They don't need charts and graphs to know it.

Trump clearly knows how to get things done on a very tight budget. The American people have rejected the kind of reckless spending as we've seen the last eight years. The proof is in state governments and in the three branches of the federal government. Therefore, Trump has a mandate to reverse the policies that have kept middle America in stagnation.

And there's a difference between Republicans now and Republicans the last time they were given united government. Now Republicans are more like Democrats in that rhetoric is all that matters. In the past, the GOP tone police would be quick to warn us off gloating and to encourage us to reach across the aisle. Not this time. Like the Democrats eight years ago, the Republicans of 2016 are going to cite their mandate. "We won" is what Obama said back in 2009.

Well...we won. Now, get out of the way.

My Mind is Clean
0
  Like

2 Comments On This Entry

Quote

So, which is it? Does money buy elections or doesn't it? When I kept reading about how little Trump was spending on his campaign, I thought we were being played. There was no way this guy who's supposed to be so rich and so obsessed with winning was trying to win this thing on the cheap. Unless he was a plant trying to throw the contest and let Hillary win more easily than if she had to run against a serious Republican. Why did I think this? Because I had been taught, like every other American who studied American history, that money buys elections. Everyone knew this.

It wasn't true, was it?


It wasn't true THIS time. But then this election was an exception in SO many ways. I think it IS true in general - given two equally lackluster candidates, the one who can spend more wins. I believe it was ESPECIALLY true in the primary. Of the original 17, Trump spent more own of his OWN money ($64.6Mil) than anyone except Ted Cruz raised in total ($92.6Mil) in the primary. (Now, consider what SuperPacs ALSO raised and Spent and he was 4th behind Bush, Rubio, and Cruz)(But that ALSO doesn't consider what Trump got in "free" publicity just by being himself.)

I think the biggest place money matters is just in what it takes to "Ante Up" and show that you're "serious". Case in point is Scott Walker, My #2 choice in the primary. Many will say he had to drop out because he spent too foolishly. In reality, he never had it to spend - he raised $8.5mil on his own and superpacs raised and spent another $24mil on his behalf... that doesn't EVEN compare to Donald Trump who can throw in $60+ mil out of his own pocket, and probably more if he'd needed to.

Case in point, on a lesser scale is, well, ME. I've mentioned before maybe someday running for US House. (This year was just too weird, I saw that way back in Jan/Feb.) But there's a reality: Minimum ante for a house race is $800K, and that's for a no-name district like mine where the other party is not a "name" either. I can do that, just barely (But as I can only do it once, I'm keeping my powder dry. For now.). I've got some good ideas I'd like to work on in the house. Heck, I'm sure YOU have some good ideas and would make a decent congressman. Likewise any number of others here on this board. But *I'VE* got some good ideas AND $800+K. In a theoretical match-up, which of us all do you think would win?
0

Adam Smithee, on 18 December 2016 - 04:54 PM, said:

Quote

So, which is it? Does money buy elections or doesn't it? When I kept reading about how little Trump was spending on his campaign, I thought we were being played. There was no way this guy who's supposed to be so rich and so obsessed with winning was trying to win this thing on the cheap. Unless he was a plant trying to throw the contest and let Hillary win more easily than if she had to run against a serious Republican. Why did I think this? Because I had been taught, like every other American who studied American history, that money buys elections. Everyone knew this.It wasn't true, was it?
It wasn't true THIS time. But then this election was an exception in SO many ways. I think it IS true in general - given two equally lackluster candidates, the one who can spend more wins. I believe it was ESPECIALLY true in the primary. Of the original 17, Trump spent more own of his OWN money ($64.6Mil) than anyone except Ted Cruz raised in total ($92.6Mil) in the primary. (Now, consider what SuperPacs ALSO raised and Spent and he was 4th behind Bush, Rubio, and Cruz)(But that ALSO doesn't consider what Trump got in "free" publicity just by being himself.)I think the biggest place money matters is just in what it takes to "Ante Up" and show that you're "serious". Case in point is Scott Walker, My #2 choice in the primary. Many will say he had to drop out because he spent too foolishly. In reality, he never had it to spend - he raised $8.5mil on his own and superpacs raised and spent another $24mil on his behalf... that doesn't EVEN compare to Donald Trump who can throw in $60+ mil out of his own pocket, and probably more if he'd needed to.Case in point, on a lesser scale is, well, ME. I've mentioned before maybe someday running for US House. (This year was just too weird, I saw that way back in Jan/Feb.) But there's a reality: Minimum ante for a house race is $800K, and that's for a no-name district like mine where the other party is not a "name" either. I can do that, just barely (But as I can only do it once, I'm keeping my powder dry. For now.). I've got some good ideas I'd like to work on in the house. Heck, I'm sure YOU have some good ideas and would make a decent congressman. Likewise any number of others here on this board. But *I'VE* got some good ideas AND $800+K. In a theoretical match-up, which of us all do you think would win?


Me because I'm asking you to borrow $800,000 and invoking the "I Asked First" rule.
0
Page 1 of 1

2 user(s) viewing

2 Guests
0 member(s)
0 anonymous member(s)

Search My Blog

Recent Entries

New Blogroll! And...World's Shortest Movie Reviews

Blog Roll
Ace of Spades
National Review
Got News
RealClearPolitics
ZeroHedge
The Federalist
African American Conservatives
Instapundit


World's Shortest Movie Reviews
American Sniper: Bradly Cooper=Best Actor
The Arroyo: Had a Pureflix feel to the acting, but well shot. Great conservative movie.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies: As usual, the third installment is the best--having an ending really helped.
The Maze Runner: The perfect metaphor for moving to Detroit.
Dumb and Dumber To: More jokes. Cruder jokes. Someone gets hooked on crack.
Snowpiercer: Joe Biden's idea of heaven. Everyone on the Earth living on a train. Captain America admits he was going to eat Billy Elliot.
Hunger Games: Catching Fire: This is what the world would look like without college football.
Interstellar 2001:A Space Odyssey with a soul. You will get very thirsty, so hydrate before viewing.
When the Game Stands Tall Proves my theory that it's worse when you win.
Guardians of the Galaxy Make a fun adventure movie about space and make a ton of money. Who knew? I mean, besides that Lucas guy.
Blended I don't get the "Billy Madison is genius, Blended is crap" review. It's as good as any other Sandler movie.
Mom's Night Out Hilarious. You will laugh unless you drive a black BMW and watch sunsets at the golf course.
The Amazing Spiderman 2 This series is still better than the Toby McGuire one. I actually cared if Gwen Stacy died.
Odd Thomas I understand the critics who didn't like the uneven tone. Way uneven. Still worth watching on Netflix.
Star Trek Into DarknessGood movie. Please, for the love of tribbles, let old Spock die.
Grown Ups 2 Critics, attack. Whatever you want to say about this one, I'm okay with it.
Thor: The Dark World Still very, very good. But I'd like an entire Thor movie set just in Asgard.