The landslide that wasn’t, plus more on Baby HP

As we all know, 3am our time on Saturday sees the Apotheosis of Donald J Tweet — or something of that nature. This will for good or ill, or at best good and ill, be POTUS.

8177690-3x2-700x467

The Revenant of Oz was actually invited to the shindig, her being such a big fan — but she is alas too busy.

One Nation senator says she decided she could not leave the people of Queensland, and her colleague Brian Burston would go instead….

Burston told Guardian Australia on Monday he was in the process of buying tickets for his trip, which he would pay for himself and not seek to claim under his parliamentary entitlements.

He said he would represent One Nation in Washington after Queensland senator Malcolm Roberts, who received an invitation to the inauguration through his advisor and former Trump campaign worker Darren Nelson, withdrew because of a medical condition.

Hanson, who was next in line for the tickets, said she had decided not to go, citing “work commitments”.

Well, there you go!

Just for the record, let’s review the “landslide” victory furphy. Many have done so: FactCheck.org, Trump Landslide? Nope is one.

Despite Donald Trump and his campaign manager describing his election victory as a “landslide,” Trump’s margin of victory actually ranks among the closest in the Electoral College…

…the percentage of electoral votes won by Trump, 56.9 percent, is hardly a landslide by historic comparison.

John Pitney, a professor of American Politics at Claremont McKenna College, put together a chart showing the Electoral College share won by every president since George Washington and found that Trump’s margin of victory ranked 46th out of 58 U.S. presidential elections. (You can view the whole list below.)

“It’s just not true,” Pitney said of Trump’s “landslide” boast….

And then there is FACT CHECK: Trump Falsely Claims A ‘Massive Landslide Victory’.

The Short Answer

Trump contends that the size of his victory was historic, which is not borne out by the results.

Trump won 306 electoral votes to Clinton’s 232. That puts him comfortably above the required 270 electoral votes. But it’s hard to argue this represents a landslide of historic proportions, given that out of 58 presidential elections, the winner has received more electoral votes in 37 contests.

Not to mention the loss by millions in the popular vote. But the system, such as it is, has delivered Donald J Tweet to the White House, a bit of a let-down after Trump Tower, and we’re stuck with it — hoping of course for the best.

2E1B72A8000005780imagea29_1446664992133.jpg

Inside the modest Trump pad

Meanwhile, poor Baby HP!

I did manage to get it going in Safe Mode which at least means I can rescue some items from the hard drive — like the picture at the top of this post of  The Donald. But it won’t boot normally any more and thus can’t do Internet, or blog posting.

So here I am again at Wollongong Library!

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “The landslide that wasn’t, plus more on Baby HP

  1. Trump’s “landslide” victory or Hillary’s “landslip” fall from a “95% certainty”: what’s the difference – except, of course, to paraphrase Obama – “he won”. Anyway, even if Trump does slightly less than nothing much – because that’s where the bar has been set – it’s been interesting to see the weeping and the wailing and the non-acceptance of the democratic process, not to mention the intense scrutiny of irrelevant minutiae such as this.

    True colours, shining through. Somebody orta write a song 🙂

  2. Love the song, KVD! But I don’t see what I raised here at all as anything like ” irrelevant minutiae”. I think it is a very serious issue when the US electoral system can throw up a result like this one. I think that merits serious scrutiny because it casts doubt on the whole meaning of “the democratic process”.

  3. Neil, you do realise that HRC beat DJT by 4.3M votes in California alone, while his overall deficit is about 2.8M? How does that fit with your idea of a “democratic process”? The US being run by California, and maybe Brad Pitt for Pres.? Anyway, I will defer to Hillary herself; after all “at this point, what difference does it make?”

    We’ve got the same sort of shambles with our own upper house; and there are valid reasons of fairness and proportionality no doubt applying in the US. Even our lower house suffers from a lack of “pure democracy” – if that is what is meant by your one man one vote democratic process. And have a look at some of the individual electorate boundaries in the US if you really want to get upset about blatant election rigging. And all of this with non-compulsory voting,held on a Tuesday in a working week, in almost midwinter; no sausage sizzles for them 🙂

    Hey, if you need an assist with a new computer drop me a line. Serious (i.e. genuine) offer.

Comments are closed.