The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Friday, September 25, 2020


As part of their frustration over the likelihood that Donald Trump will nominate and the Senate will confirm a new Supreme Court justice to replace RBG, the Democrats have resorted to threats about what they'll do in revenge when (if) they win the November elections.

After demonstrating that there is considerable historical precedent for Trump's actions, Michael Barone discusses each of the Democrats' threats—(1) packing the court, (2) naming Puerto Rico and D.C. states, and (3) abolishing the electoral college. Of particular interest is his take on the electoral college. The Democrats suggest that the elections are somehow unfair because they have won the popular vote by small percentages on a number of occasion but lost in the electoral college. In each cases, the popular vote advantage came from only one or two states with significant blue majorities:

In both 2004 and 2012, incumbent presidents were reelected with 51% of the popular vote. But a similar percentage of the vote netted Obama 332 electoral votes and Republican George W. Bush only 286.

Hillary Clinton’s entire edge in popular votes came from California. [emphasis mine] That’s because since 2000, for the first time since 1820, our largest-population state is voting far out of line with the national average.

That puts the party favored there at a disadvantage, just like any party in which votes are heavily clustered in relatively few congressional or legislative districts. The party in which the votes are more evenly spread around enjoys a natural advantage.

Democrats can try to compensate for this by changing or evading provisions of the Constitution, but amendments must be approved by 38 state legislatures. What's more, all 50 states would have to approve the elimination of the states’ equal representation in the Senate.

A more practical and speedy response and one that doesn’t violate norms is to modify your political positions and rhetoric. [emphasis mine] It may satisfy liberals’ pride to pile up votes in California and the coastal northeast by denouncing "deplorables" in the flyover states. But it’s also feasible to win more votes there.

The "new" Democratic party is hard-left, and absolutely refuses to "modify ... political positions and rhetoric." Rather than examining the reality that their positions are out of the mainstream and that the American people reject socialism for very good reasons, they plod onward, believing the fantasy that socialism will lead to utopia and throwing tantrums when they lose.