Electoral College Vote

The electors of the Electoral College have assembled in their state capitols and voted.  For the first time since 1912, there were multiple faithless electors.  Amazingly, Hillary Clinton lost more votes than Trump!

In Minnesota, a Clinton elector refused to submit a ballot but was replaced by an alternate who voted for Hillary.

 

In Colorado, a Clinton elector voted for someone other than Clinton and was replaced.  The replacement voted Clinton.

In Maine, a Clinton elector voted for Bernie!  The vote was invalidated and switched to Clinton.

In Washington, 4 electors went rogue.  3 of them voted for Colin Powell and 1 for Faith Spotted Eagle.  These votes were not changed, placing Colin Powell as the third place contender in a race where he was not on the ballot.

In Texas, two Trump electors jumped ship.  One voted for Ohio Governor John Kasich and the other for former Texas Congressman Ron Paul.  Another elector resigned in order not to vote for Trump but was replaced by an alternate who did vote Trump.  There was even an elector who voted Trump but chose Carly Fiorina for VP instead of Pence.

The final tally is:
Donald Trump: 304
Hillary Clinton: 228
Colin Powell: 3
Faith Spotted Eagle: 1
Ron Paul: 1
John Kasich: 1

Who is Faith Spotted Eagle?  I had not heard of her before today.  It turns out that she is a member of the Sioux Nation and has been part of the effort to block the Keystone XL pipeline and the Dakota Access Pipeline.

 

It is peculiar that Hillary, who by her silence tacitly supported the intense lobbying of electors to change their votes, lost more electoral votes in the end.  It makes no difference to the state of the race but it does make for an interesting footnote in history.  Though I mention 1912, that was a case of a VP candidate dying prior to the electoral college.  For electors to abandon the nominee, we have to go back to 1808 when 6 electors chose someone other than George Clinton over James Madison.  It is a bad precedent to have so many faithless electors and will encourage more such lobbying in the future.

 

With the electoral college finally behind us, let us move on to the next effort to derail the Trump Presidency.  I've already heard calls for impeachment.  Which party was demanding that the other party accept the results of the election?  Yeah, there are those double-standards again.

UPDATE: An elector in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders, so that he joins the pool.  The electors who were reversed in Maine, Colorado, and Minnesota had all tried to vote for Bernie.  Had they not been invalidated, Bernie would now have 4 electoral votes.

New Delegate Math

I have seen varying counts depending on which site I check but they are all pretty close.  Just for sake of discussion, let's go with this one.

Starting with the Republicans, Trump's commanding lead has become virtually insurmountable.  Baring a miracle, I don't see that Cruz can catch Trump, let alone surpass him.  With 749 delegates, Trump needs 498 more to secure the nomination outright.  That means that he needs 59% of the remaining 848.  That's a tall order.  However, he is almost certainly going to take California and New York, which is half of what he needs.  If he can pull of 42% of the rest, he wins.  I give him excellent odds of doing that and cancelling the idea of a contested convention.  Cruz has 465 delegates and needs another 772.  That's 91% of the remaining, which isn't possible as there are proportional states still to go.  He cannot win the nomination except through a contested convention.  Lastly, there is Kasich with 143 delegates.  There are not enough delegates left for even a miracle.  If he wins another state, I will be surprised.  Kasich can only hope to deny enough delegates to Trump to force the contested convention.  Even if that happens, why would someone who proved so lackluster through the campaign be selected as the nominee?  Consider also, under a winner-take-all system, Trump would have 22 states worth 1012 delegates to Cruz's 10 states and 429 delegates.  Cruz would be viewed as desperate and Kasich (1 state, 66 delegates) as a crackpot.

 

On the Democrat side, Hillary has a lead even more commanding that Trump has among the Republicans.  With 1690 delegates, she needs only 692 (31%) of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination.  By contrast, Bernie needs 1436 (64%) to capture the nomination.  Yes, there is something funky about math.  Both can win.  Let me check the NY Times again.  Clinton has 1690: check.  Bernie has 946: check.  Democratic delegates remaining is 2245.  Add those three numbers together and we get 4881 delegates, 118 more than the 4763 available.  Well, that will teach me to trust the NY Times.  In any case, Hillary can be absolutely crushed by nearly a two to one margin for the rest of the primaries and still win.  At this point, even if she is indicted, she will win the nomination.

 

A Trump v. Clinton election is a virtual certainty.  Trump has a surprising amount of cross-over appeal but is anathema to much of the conservative base of the Republican Party.  Will he be able to attract enough Independents and disaffected Democrats to make up the gap?  Hillary owes her political career to her husband's charm and political skills.  Can that and the loyalty of the Democratic base push her to victory?  I cannot think of two more flawed candidates in my life time.  Would you like bad or bad?  Disaster or catastrophe?

Kasich the Spoiler

So far, 1404 delegates have been allocated in the Republican primaries.  With his narrow victory in the state where he is currently serving as governor, John Kasich has collected 143 delegates, which puts him 1,094 away from clinching the nomination.  There are 1,068 delegates that haven't been allocated.  Hmmm.  Let's suppose that Rubio will support Kasich and ask his delegates to vote for him.  In that event, he could count on 312 delegates and only require 925, which is 87% of the remaining delegates.  This is obviously not going to happen.  Just look at how he did in every other race held yesterday.  No chance.  At this moment, Rubio still has more delegates than Kasich and has won 3 primaries to Kasich's 1 and he has suspended his campaign.

 

As it is, Trump needs to win 53% of the remaining delegates to capture the nomination outright.  Entirely doable, especially with some winner-take-all states like New Jersey (51), Arizona (56), Pennsylvania (71), and especially California (172) still to come.  Ted Cruz's path has become much tougher.  With Kasich still in the running, the anti-Trump vote will remain split.  Cruz needs 77% of the remaining delegates, which is nigh impossible now.  The most likely outcomes are a Trump victory or a contested convention.  It is possible that the absence of Rubio will boost either Cruz or Kasich to win close contests with Trump.

 

If no one has the 1237 delegates for the win, Kasich might be able to do some bargaining with either Trump or Cruz.  Perhaps even Rubio could play a hand since he has enough delegates that may make a difference.  It is a path fraught with peril.  Trump has already won 21 contests, more than double Cruz (9); Rubio (3) and Kasich (1) are historical footnotes.  Unless things turn dramatically in Cruz's favor tomorrow, Trump will have the plurality of delegates and be closest of anyone to 1237.  To choose another candidate is to risk a Trump walkout and guarantee his voters go with him.  If the Republican Party didn't want Trump, it should have coalesced around an anti-Trump candidate weeks ago.  Of course, the person who had the best shot, Cruz, is detested by the establishment.

 

A contested convention that doesn't end with Trump as the nominee will likely bring about the most impressive third party run since Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party in 1912; this was the only election in which a third party captured more electoral votes than one of the traditional parties.  There is a righteously indignant electorate and such a move could permanently crash the party.

Kamikaze Kasich

Amazingly, in a year where a party outsider is crushing the establishment candidates with calls for stopping illegal immigration and deporting those who are here, John Kasich thinks it will be a winning strategy to promise Amnesty with 100 days of his inauguration.  It is as if the man has no idea what has driven the campaign thus far.  Rubio has be handicapped throughout this campaign because of his support for something short of Amnesty in the Gang of Eight.  JEB, who described illegal immigration as an act of love, flamed out despite over $100 million in funding.  George W. Bush tried to get comprehensive immigration reform that had a Path to Citizenship, not Amnesty, and the electorate rose up against it to such a degree that it died.  Nearly a decade of clear signals from the people has not pierced Kasich's skull.  I wonder if he is trying to torpedo his already sinking candidacy.

If Kasich doesn't win Ohio, he should drop out.  If he wins only Ohio, he will be mathematically unable to get the 1237 delegates to win the nomination and he should drop out.  He can only be a spoiler and create a convention fight that is unlikely to benefit him or his party.  However, as noted in an earlier post, he has no elective future after his stint as governor.  There isn't much of a downside for his shenanigans and the establishment might even appreciate it.

Republican Delegate Mathematics

Why are Rubio and Kasich still in the race?  Is there a possibility that either can win?  Let's look at the numbers:

32 States and Territories have not yet voted in the Republican Primary:



• 17 States and Territories are winner-take-all for a total of 901 delegates.
• 9 contests are proportional with 325 delegates.
• 6 are oddballs with actual delegates elected based on how they say they will vote but not necessarily bound by that.  This pool has 167 delegates which might be considered analogous to Democrat super delegates.

Rubio has 151 delegates, 1,086 shy of what he needs to win the nomination.  If he swept the winner-take-all states, he would still be 185 short.  He would need to secure 38% of the proportional and oddball delegates to win the nomination.  Thus far, he has only secured 15% of such delegates.  There is no chance that he can win the nomination by winning delegates, he will not be selected the nominee in a brokered convention, and he will cripple future prospects if he loses Florida next week.  There is no upside.  The only reason to stay is to force that brokered convention in which case he is announcing his status as a pawn to the establishment in an anti-establishment year.  A pawn to the establishment that he ran against to secure his seat in the Senate.

 

Kasich is event further back than Rubio but at least he got some delegates on Tuesday with a good showing in Michigan.  Still, with only 54 delegates, he needs 1,183 more to secure the nomination.  If he wins all the winner-take-all states, he will be 282 short.  That would require 57% of all the proportional and oddball delegates.  So far, he has only captured 5% of the delegates.  There is talk that he is hoping to secure the Vice Presidency.  If he wins in Ohio - a very valuable state in the general election - he will have a stronger hand.  If he loses, he's out.

 

Cruz has 359 delegates, 878 short of the magic 1237.  He needs to get 61% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.  Not possible as long as the Rubio and Kasich are in the mix.  It will become nigh impossible depending on the results of next week.  His best hope is that Rubio and Kasich suspend their campaigns and the anti-Trump vote goes to him.  If Trump really does have a ceiling of support in the high 30s to low 40s, the math could turn around very quickly.

 

Trump has 458 delegates, 779 away from the nomination.  He needs 54% of the remaining delegates.  If the field remains as crowded as it is, he should win pluralities in a lot of the winner-take-all states.  Had the races to date been winner-take-all, Trump would have almost 200 additional delegates.  By far, he has the best odds of securing the nomination and avoiding a brokered convention.

 

Kasich has no elective future after his current stint as governor and thus has no reason to leave the campaign.  Rubio can only damage future prospects for elective office by remaining and would be wise to bow out and throw his support to whichever of the frontrunners he prefers.  Cruz will be mathematically eliminated before Trump.  Will he bow out at that point or also push for a brokered convention?  I'll blog on that if it comes to pass.

Hawkeye Thoughts

There is talk that because Trump did not win Iowa that he is now toast.  He failed the expectations game and his support will now desert him.  I am doubtful.  Unlike a primary, a caucus requires a much greater commitment.  Stopping by your local polling station to pull a lever is a lot easier than attending a caucus.  There are efforts by other participants to win you to their candidate while you try to woo them to yours.  Since one is committing the evening to the event rather than just swinging by the polling station, a ground organization is far more important in Iowa.  Had Iowa been a primary, Trump likely would have won.  The big test will be how he does in the New Hampshire Primary.  If he doesn't win this one, then his support may ebb.

Though Rubio looks to be on the rise, he has the huge issue of his Gang of Eight fiasco.  In a year when an outsider like Trump was able to rocket to the top on the issue of immigration, it would be folly to nominate a Senator who attempted to foist amnesty on the voters.  Immigration is the Republicans' trump card and Rubio cannot play it.  This duplicates how Romney could not press Obama on Obamacare thanks to his passage of Romneycare in Massachusetts.  I like Rubio but this is the wrong year for his run.  He's young and has plenty of time to come back in later years, hopefully after atoning for his Amnesty foolishness.

 

Hillary is in big trouble.  Her two tenths of one percent victory is really a tie.  Bernie, who has been largely ignored by the media, somehow closed a double-digit gap thanks to a message that resonated with the base.  The base loves the farthest left candidate and Hillary can't credibly go there thanks to her history.  She voted for Bush's Iraq invasion, she lobbied Obama to stay in Iraq, for a greater commitment in Syria, and was the top cheerleader for the Libyan adventure.  She is comparatively a hawk in a party dominated by doves.  The party doesn't want Bernie - which is why he gets as little coverage as he does and why there are so few debates - and will probably enlist Biden or Warren if Hillary doesn't turn things around quickly.

 

Bernie is a true believer.  Most Democrats deliver the same lines that Bernie does but, once safely in office, they sidle up to the fat cats on Wall Street and enjoy the sweet life.  Bernie will attempt the socialist ideals he espouses, ruining that sweet life for all Washington elites.  When no one thought he had a chance, he was treated as the crazy uncle.  Now that he has gained traction, the long knives will come out.

 

Carson peaked too soon and is unlikely to recapture it.  He is unlikely to break the top 5 in New Hampshire.  He would have been more suited to the campaigning styles of earlier eras.  The 24 hour news cycle rewards larger than life personalities while overlooking the quietly humble.  The former is more entertaining but the latter is better suited to the presidency.

 

Kasich, Jeb, and Christie need a good showing to keep the money rolling.  I doubt Christie is going much beyond New Hampshire as many are still annoyed with his embracing Obama only days before the 2012 election.  Efforts were made to enlist him in 2012 but now he isn't wanted.  He missed his window.  Jeb wants to stay in the field and hope to benefit from the winnowing.  Short of some serious disasters for the top tier candidates, I don't see a route for his recovery, and for that I am thankful.

Charity must be Voluntary

I had a conversation with one of the members of the legislature the other day. I said, ‘I respect the fact that you believe in small government. I do, too. I also know that you’re a person of faith.

‘Now, when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer.’

John Kasich, Ohio Governor and Presidential Candidate

 

Let's ignore the separation of church and state for the moment and just ponder this future conversation with St. Peter.

 

St. Peter: What did you do for the poor, John?

Kasich: I arranged for tax dollars to pay for their healthcare.

St. Peter: You took monies coerced from the citizens of your state and directed them to the poor to benefit you in the afterlife?

Kasich: What?  Coerced?

St. Peter: I presume the citizens were required to pay the tax or suffer some penalty of law?

Kasich: Well, yeah.  But it was for charity.

St. Peter: You realize it isn't charity unless it's voluntary?

Kasich: Funding through voluntary contributions isn't the way government does things.

St. Peter: Taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to the poor is not a virtue.  Good intentions do not change the fact that it was government-sanctioned theft.  How much of your money did you give to the poor?

 

Imagine if, instead of having government fund this directly, Governor Kasich funneled the money to a church-run charity that did exactly the same thing.  By his own admission, he is funding healthcare for the poor because he wants to have a good answer for St. Peter.  This is about his religious convictions, not secular governance.  Though it would have the same end by different means, there would be a firestorm of protest.  If the Catholic Church is all in favor of the government coercing the taxpayer to fund the poor - a task that was once handled by churches, shouldn't it be automatically opposed as a mix of church and state?  Hasn't government funding allowed churches to direct their money to other issues?  By taking the expense of supporting the poor from churches, isn't that a contribution to churches?

 

Government cannot engage in charity.  Everything government does is founded on its monopoly on the use of force.  Only government can 'legally' initiate force to make people comply.  Non-governmental entities that initiate force are called criminals.