Electoral College reform? nvm

Now that it’s clear that Hillary Clinton won a fairly solid majority of popular votes cast for President, but didn’t come very close to winning the all-important Electors, of course a lot of very good people are getting very interested in reforming, bypassing, or eliminating the Electoral College. They’re wrong. Here’s why.

Continue reading “Electoral College reform? nvm”

File under "do you even read what you wrote?"

So TIME‘s Person of the Year 2016 is Donald J. Trump. That makes sense. He “defines” the year in our culture.

Their description of runner-up Hillary R. Clinton, however, made me go “Do you even read what you wrote? At all?”

Charlotte Alter, a “journalist” for TIME, wrote this about Secretary Clinton:

Expectations certainly missed their target: the race between the first plausible female presidential candidate and a man who bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy” did not boil down to gender. In interviews across the country in the year leading up to the election, many voters suggested that shattering the glass ceiling wasn’t an urgent priority for them. Some took it as a given that a woman will be President one day, and it wasn’t worth electing someone they believed was the wrong woman just to show it could be done.

Did not. Boil down. To gender.

Look at Alter’s justification: If “glass ceiling” doesn’t win, if “a woman will be President” anyway someday, then it’s not about gender. This is exactly why it’s about gender. People in media read being a woman as some ticket that will get you cool things like the White House; they don’t view overt sexism as a real thing that matters. Which is why they write puff pieces about being “the first” this and that but hardly any analysis of what’s going on with the “alt right” racist white nationalist movement that is also heavy with those GamerGate dudes and the “pickup artist” culture.

It wouldn’t be exactly right to say this election was about gender. It was more about race, and there were a lot of other factors that my readers are already familiar with, but much of it boils down to toxic “bro culture.”

In fact, the article even quotes a Clinton supporter saying as much:

“Hillary did everything right, she checked all the boxes, and clearly that doesn’t really win,” says Ramsini, an attorney in Columbus, Ohio. “If a woman can’t beat this guy, then who can she beat?”

So yeah, kind of a weird statement that the election “didn’t boil down to gender.” It kind of did.

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

I don’t know if you heard it here first, but if you heard it here first remember that you heard it here first:

Trump’s gonna win.

I don’t have a lot of logic to back it up. Yet. But something about this seems weirdly inevitable. I think the main thing has to do with my hypothesis about “white moderates,” who are basically conservatives with enough liberal friends that they only vote for “nice” Republicans to avoid social opprobrium.

Short version: Trump’s going to nominate someone really cool and compelling for Vice President, and he’ll throw enough (extra) economic populism into his stump speech to sway people who feel a lot of economic uncertainty, and he’ll cut way back on the theatrics to create a media narrative that makes his detractors look ridiculous. (Remember, media people are not very bright and they have very short memories.)

If nominated, Hillary will lose by continually trying to split the difference and seem reasonable.

If nominated, Bernie will lose by being so earnest and geeky that Trump’s bullying will push everyone’s lizard-brain buttons and the public will join in.

I’m serious about this.