A Close Look at Why Hillary Clinton Lost the Election

A Close Look at Why Hillary Clinton Lost the Election

by Terry AmRhein

Almost every political fortune-teller in the country predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the

Presidential election.  But yet she suffered a stunning defeat.  Clinton has eminent qualifications to serve in office.  She graduated from Yale Law School.  She co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and helped create State Children’s Health Insurance Program to provide health insurance for poor child.  Between 1993 and 2003, she served as First Lady with Bill Clinton.  In 2001 she was elected the first female Senator from the State of New York and served until 2009.  In 2009, she was appointed to serve as Secretary of State with the Obama administration where she helped negotiate the Iran uranium enrichment treaty that reduced Iran’s stock pile of enriched uranium by 98% and reduced the number of gas centrifuges used for uranium enrichment.  Yet the voters elected someone with no experience and no qualifications at all.  

            The fortune-tellers claim that during their polling, they didn’t pay sufficient attention to the rural non-college educated working class people who were not polled during the surveys.  Apparently there is a vague group of thousands of voters wondering aimlessly around fields of corn, wheat and cattle unnoticed by the pollsters, sort of like a farm version of the land of the walking dead, and they miraculously appeared on election day.  I don’t think that was the reason Hillary lost.

            Look at the voting statistics for presidential elections from 2008 to 2016 below:

2008 Presidential Election
Race	% of population	Democrats	Republican
White	74%	43%	55%
African American	13%	95%	4%
Hispanic	9%	67%	31%
2012 Presidential Election
Race	% of population	Democrats	Republican
White	72%	39%	59%
African American	13%	93%	6%
Hispanic	10%	71%	27%
2016 Presidential Election
Race	% of population	Democrats	Republican
White	63%	37%	58%
African American	13%	88%	8%
Hispanic	17%	65%	29%

The percentage of white voters who voted Republican was 55% in 2008, 59% in 2012 and 58% in 2016.  If a large number of white Republicans mysteriously appeared in 2016 to vote for Trump, the percentage of whites voting Republicans would have increased.  But it did not, whites voting Republican actually decreased by 1% this election!  In fact going back to the 2000 election, Gore v Bush, the statistics show that white voters voted 55% Bush and 42% Gore and in 2004, Kerry v Bush, whites voted 58% Bush and 41% Kerry. So whites have voted consistently, since at least 2000, about 57% vote Republican and 40% vote Democrat with other fringe candidates making up the difference to 100%.  Who the Republican candidate , or who the Democratic candidate is, makes little difference.  By and large the popular vote for white Americans is determined by party loyalty, not the candidate.

Likewise, the minority voters vote consistently Democratic.  95% of African American and 67% of Hispanic voted for Obama in 2008 and 93% and 71% voted for Obama in 2012.  Obama was elected because the number of minority voters was large enough to overcome the white Republican vote.  Even going back to 2000 (Gore v Bush) 90% of African Americans and 62% of Hispanics voted for Gore while only 9% voted for George Bush.  In this most recent election, Clinton only got 88% of African Americans, (a 7% point drop from 2008) and 65% of Hispanics (a 6% drop from 2012).  It was enough for her to win the popular election by 2.6 million votes nationwide, by 2.1%, of the vote, but she didn’t win the Electoral College.  Trump is right, the election is rigged, but in his favor.

The Electoral College was devised by our founding fathers as a compromise between various options for electing the president including choosing by direct popular vote and choosing by votes of congress.  Selecting the president by popular vote was problematic because of the slave issue in the South i.e. how would you count slaves for voting purposes. Selecting the president by a vote of congress could make the president indebted to congress, violating separation of legislative and executive branches.  Also selecting the president by congressional vote worried our founders because the election would be held all at one time and all in one place and this would permit a greater possibility of voter manipulation.  The Electoral College offered a combination of the two methods, electors would congregate in their respective states, they would be electors only once, and each state would have delegates in proportion to their representation in congress i.e. the number of representatives the state was allotted plus two senators.   

The problem with the Electoral College is the apportionment of electoral votes.  The smallest number of electors a state can have is three, allowing for one representative plus two senators.  So for a very small state like Vermont, that has only about 750,000 residents, each of the three electors represents about 250,000 people.  California however has about 39 million people and has 55 electoral votes, so each elector represents about 700,000 people.  California should have more electoral votes in order to have each elector represent an equal number of citizens.  Every ten years, federal representatives are reapportioned based on the national census.  So after the 2020 census, California should receive a higher number of representatives and electors.  Until then though, the state is under represented.   Also in most states, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the winner of the state takes all of the electoral votes i.e. winner take all.  So Trump won Michigan (16 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) and New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) for example by less than 1% of the vote and won Florida (29 electoral) and Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes) by a little over 1% of the votes but Trump received all of the 79 electoral votes these states are allocated.  Clinton got no credit for winning almost half of the votes in these states.  Trump won the election by winning states by small margins but did not win the popular vote because Clinton won large states, California and New York for example, by wide margins.    

This flaw in electing our president by the electoral system is no trivial matter.  George Washington became the president of the U. S. in 1789.  Since then a presidential election has been held 57 times.  In five of those cases (1824, John Quincy Adams v Andrew Jackson, 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes v Sam Tilden, 1888 Benjamin Harrison v Grover Cleveland, 2000 George W. Bush v Al Gore and in 2016) the president lost the popular vote but won in the electoral college.  This represents 8.8% of all the elections.  So in almost 10% of the elections, one out of ten, the president has not received most of the popular vote.  Changing the presidential election process to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment, a very difficult task indeed.  The problem could be mitigated by the states if all the states agreed to allocate their electoral votes in proportion to the electoral votes that each candidate received.  But all states would have to agree to this at the same time.  Otherwise some states would be splitting their votes between candidates and others would still use the winner take all system.  Another suggestion that would avoid a constitutional amendment and would assure that the candidate with the most national votes won the election, is for individual states to allocate all their votes to the candidate that won the most national votes i.e. a winner take all based on the national election.  This would avoid allocating electors by popular state vote and would assure that the winner of the national election actually became President.     

Clinton lost the election because she didn’t win the smaller states and Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida.  And she didn’t win these states because she didn’t control the nation’s “dominate narrative” about where the country was going and how our problems can be fixed.  She didn’t convince these states that she knew how to fix their problems.  During the campaign, Donald Trump incessantly talked about “Making America Great Again” and “Lying Hillary”.  Clinton allowed Trump to control the conversation.  Clinton’s strong qualifications for office were barely mentioned.  The fact that unemployment stands at 4.9% (the lowest in years) and workers are gaining employment, a stock market near an all-time high, low inflation and a growing GDP went without mention by Clinton.  The fact that 20 million people now have health insurance that didn’t have it before Obamacare and that insurance companies can no longer disqualify people from coverage because of pre-existing illnesses.  Clinton hardly mentioned the Democrat plan to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour which would help lower income families, or the plan to require paid family leave for all families or the plan to provide a college education to all Americans that desire to go to college.  In addition, the Clinton emails scandal was continuously harped on by Trump.  Yet Clinton never forcibly and convincingly responded to the accusations.  She let Trump make her look guilty and as a result, many people believed she has gotten away with a crime. 

            In addition, Clinton didn’t pound on the scam job of Trump University (which Trump paid $35 million to settle out of court) and where students received little for their tuition.  Nor did she hammer on Trump’s charities in which he paid none of his own money but used donations to the charity for his own profit and self-aggrandizement.  Using money donated to a charity for self-profit is felony fraud.  She should have pounded on this unmercifully, but she did nothing!  

The table also reveals another interesting point.  The fact that the white voters and the minority voters are polar opposites each other, is an indication of how divided our country is.  Within a true democracy, the ethnicity of citizens should not matter.  But in the real world, prejudice and bigotry exists and play a big part in dividing the country.  As the proportion of white voters within the country slowly decreases while the proportion of Hispanics increases, the divide is going to continue to increase.  But there’s more to it than that.   In each election, over 50% of whites voted Republican.  The minority vote was even more lopsided in the other direction.  In each election well over ten times as many Blacks and twice as many Hispanic voted Democrat as voted Republican.  America is becoming a country of whites and a country of minorities.  Each group has its own identity and its own goals that are in conflict with the other group.  A president like Trump who exacerbates bigotry, will make matters even worst.

Terry Amrhein is the author of the acclaimed book, “Democracy on the Edge, A Discussion of Political Issues in America”, voted best political book of 2016 by the Pacific Book Review.

           

What have we done?

by Terry A. AmRhein

There once was a nation that promised a better future for all people whether they were black, white or brown.  Whether they were European, Hispanic, Jewish, Moslem or Oriental, all people were welcome.  That country died last election day.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"  

These solemn words, engraved on a plaque at the gateway to America, have now melted away.

I fear that America has reached the apex of its existence for the remainder of my life.  I will never live to see America reach this zenith again.  And we still have such a long, long way to go.

Gone is health care for all, after only 6 years.    

Gone is environmental protection, “drill baby drill”, “burn baby burn”.  My grandchildren, and yours, will grow up on an earth full of toxins.  Companies cannot sell products on an earth that is poisoned, yet they continue to bellow out toxins.

Gone is any hope of higher wages of the working middle class (although many of these same people effectively committed suicide by electing Trump, but they don’t realize it yet.)

Gone is a woman’s right to chose her own path for her pregnancy.  

Gone is help for America’s poor and handicap.

Gone is any hope of limiting gun violence with reasonable gun regulations.

Gone is any hope of limiting campaign spending by the mega-rich and corporations, to allow the people to have a voice and not just the rich.

Gone are agreements on international trade.  Now watch the prices of overseas products go up.

And the rich will get even richer and own even a greater share of America and the corporations will blossom with roll back of regulations. 

What about the rights of the gay and transgender communities, all that they have gain is now in jeopardy.

Our founding fathers were fearful about the capability of the ordinary citizens to intelligently elect their president.  Their fear has now been justified.  And for those who elected Trump, you, along with all of the rest of us, are about to endure the pain and sorrow he will bring.  And the people in other nations will laugh at the comedy of the U. S., if they don’t break down and cry along with half the rest of us.

Terry AmRhein, Author of "Democracy on the Edge", selected as the best political book in 2016 by Pacific Book review.

Donald Trump is Rude and Obnoxious, Why Do People Still Support Him?

Characterizing Donald Trump’s political philosophy is mind-blowing.  To be sure, Trump is brash, discourteous, and narrow minded.  He doesn’t hesitate to hurtle personal insults at people he doesn’t like (e. g. comments about Miss Universe’s weight).  He talks much more about personalities than policies.  His signature idea is to build a wall to separate Mexico (an idea tried by China three thousand years ago).  He doesn’t know a thing about US foreign policy, (e. g. see Trump’s comments on Syria and Aleppo) or international law (e.g. his proposal to kill the families of terrorists ) but he won’t hesitate to tell you how smart he is, after all he doesn’t pay any taxes, although the rest of us do.  He’s suggested that the voting process is rigged and if he loses the election, he might not support the voter’s choice, unless he wins.  In fact, Trump’s belligerent attitude has effectively increased activity in white supremacy groups within the U. S. 

 

Despite Trump’s stinking characteristics, many Americans support him.  There is always the “Rock Republicans” and “Devoted Democracies” who will support a ham sandwich rather than vote for a candidate from the opposite party.  But there are other, more enlightened voters, who actually try to select the candidate who they think represents their ideals best.  However, most people make these decisions based on their “gut feelings”, their preconceived beliefs, not on a logical application of facts.  They make their decision based on emotion and then use facts to prove the decision is the correct one; it is actually the backwards of what you might think (see Jonathan Haidt, “The Righteous Mind, Why Good People are Divided by Religious and Politics”).   For example, many people are just feed up with a congress that has done nothing and their preconceived idea is that a change would be good.  Voters are sick and tired of Washington being controlled by insiders, epitomized by Hillary Clinton.  In fact, a seat in congress is the only job I can think of where experience is a detriment.  The voters want someone from outside the beltway who can make meaningful changes and they think Donald Trump fits the bill. 

 

The facts however are different.  Those policies which could help the struggling middle class are being crushed by Republicans.  Raising the minimum wage for example would help increase the standard of living of many working folks, whose inflation adjusted income has stagnated, and would also stimulate the economy creating more and better paying jobs.  Making college education more affordable, would allow smart but poor students to gain better jobs, higher pay and help stop the drain of American jobs to other countries.  Republicans, who control both the House and Senate, will not support these ideas.  The fact is that in 2007-2008, the House of Representatives lead by Eric Cantor from Virginia, started the “Young Guns” to assure that only conservative Republicans were elected to Congress and to assure NO progressive agenda sponsored by the Democrats would get passed.  When middle class Americans vote for Republican candidates to initiate a change, they are voting for people who are against programs that would help the middle class.  They are voting against themselves!

 

Because of the Tea Party, “Young Guns” and other conservative groups, compromise and negotiation in congress is almost extinct.  Republicans now operate by the mantra “my way or the highway”.  But compromise is the key ingredient for developing legislation, without it there is no legislation and no progress.  Had Republicans been more conciliatory toward compromise in 2007 and following years, they could have created a more reasonable political agenda, and they would have avoided a candidate like Donald Trump who has been disavowed by many prominent Republicans. 

 

Another reason why Republicans like Trump is their preconceived idea that a smart businessman would make a good government leader.  But consider this.  The overriding purpose of business is to make a profit, the bigger the profit and better.  In fact, some businesses will knowingly do harm to their customers in order to make more profit.  History is full of examples, tobacco and asbestos businesses claimed that their product does not harm people, medical insurance companies refused to insure people with pre-existing diseases, Volkswagon falsified automobile emissions, pharmaceutical companies charged exorbitant prices for life-saving drugs and thousands of other examples.  This is NOT how a democratic government should work.  A democratic government’s purpose is to do good for the people.  In fact, if a president ran the government with the same purpose as a business, he/she would be impeached.  As for Donald Trump, he is not even a good businessman.  His businesses has declared bankruptcy six times (according to PolitiFact).  This does not make him qualified to be president.  Bankrupcies do not make you a better businessman, ask Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.  

 

Another preconceived idea that some people have is that businesses are run more efficiently then government.  Yes, cutting inefficiency is a maxim in business; cutting inefficiency saves money and therefore increases profit.  But, look at the US post office.  The post office ships literally millions of letters and packages each day.  Yet a person can track the delivery progress of a letter or package from it point of origin to its final destination, for any items they wish.  Or consider Social Security.  Millions of Americans receive their Social Security checks each month, delivered on time and to the right bank account, without any errors.  The same can be said for Medicare which delivers health care to millions almost flawlessly.  The government has far more customers then any business, everybody in the US, and by and large it is pretty efficient.  We know how efficient our government is because it is funded by the tax payer but we really don’t know how efficient businesses are, they keep it secret, we just assume they’re efficient.

 

So in a few days you will go to the polls and vote.  Before you pull the level or mark an “X” on the ballot, go to a reputable source (e.g. Politifact) and look up the facts about the candidate’s stand on the issues.  Compare these facts with your beliefs and pick the candidate whose political position best meets you beliefs.  Even if you chose the same candidate, you’ll make a better and wiser choice.

 

Terry A. AmRhein

Terry AmRhein is author of the acclaimed book, “Democracy on the Edge, A Discussion of Political Issues in America”, voted Best Political Book of 2016 by Pacific Book Review

 

Democracy on the Edge, A Discussion of Political Topics in America



 

PRESS RELEASE

 

If you’re interested in politics you will want to buy this book. “Democracy on the Edge” is named the “Best Political Book” in 2016 by Pacific Book Review and is also a FINALIST on the 2016 Publisher Weekly “Indie Book Award” for Current Events/Social Change.

“Democracy on the Edge” provides the background and facts behind the issues that will decide the next presidential election, all in one book.

• The Financial Crisis- What really caused the crisis?  The “Dodd-Frank Act” was enacted to prevent another financial crisis.  What does the act do?
• Campaign Finance- What was involved in the Supreme Court’s decision of “Citizens United” case?  How do Super PACs operate and affect American elections?  Who are these  people contributing millions to elections?
• Debt and the Economy- “Income Inequality”, how much do the rich really own?  Republican “supply side economics” versus the Democrat “Keynesian economics” explained in really simple language?  Is it working, the facts?
• Healthcare- Why some of us are paying for other peoples care?  What is the effect of not having a national heath care system?  A primer on how “Obamacare” works.
• Gun Control- The second amendment guarantees the right to won firearms, but what are the limitations?  How does America’s gun violence rank among other nations of the world?  Some reasonable ideas to reduce gun violence.
• Tea Party- Who are they? What do they stand for?  How are their ideas contradictory?
• American Business- The history of how some American businesses operate.  Are  Government regulations really necessary?
• Global Warming- Is it real?  What are the effects of global warming?  Is it already too late?

Each issue is based on reliable and verifiable facts not personal opinion and the issues are explained in simple, easy-to-understand terms.  But the book is not just statistics and facts; the discussions are punctuated with personal anecdotes and humorous quips that make the book entertaining to read.

“Democracy on the Edge,” is available at www.amrheinsbooks.com, Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble.com and at your local book store.

What reviewers say about “Democracy on the Edge”:

James A. Cox, Editor-in-Chief
Midwest Book Review, April, 2016
…. If you are fed up with lies and half-truths and want real answers, Terry AmRhein obliges in the pages of "Democracy on the Edge: A Discussion of Political Issues in America"….

Charity Roswell-Stanbury, Creator of On My Kindle, April 03, 2016

…. Having read and reviewed a book earlier in my career in which the author misrepresented his biased and unsupported views as fact, I appreciate the opportunity to feature an author who did his homework.

By Paula, March, 2016,

Wow!  Who Knew! … Before reading this excellent book, I must admit I was very naive. I never knew about the PACs and Superpacs massive amount of capital distorting the political process …. This book hits you right between the eyes with its directness and accuracy….


Jim D’s Review, July 2015,
This book was well written and a very informative and interesting read. Although I did not agree with all the authors' views and opinions, he did provide evidence to support them and provided much food for thought. He also injected some personal humor which lightened the reading of what I usually consider somewhat dry material.


By BWayne on August 11, 2015
If you want a good overview of some major issues confronting the U.S. this book is for you.... his writing reflects not only the results of a commendable research effort but also an effort to distill complex issues into more easily understood terms for those who may lack technical expertise in many areas.

 

“Democracy on the Edge,” is available at www.amrheinsbooks.com, Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble.com and at your local book store.

Tennessee Adopts the Bible as the State Book

By Terry A. AmRhein

Author of “Democracy on the Edge, A Discussion of Political Issues in America”

Available at www.amrheinsbooks.com, Amazon, Barnes & Noble and you local book store

 

The State of Tennessee has voted to make the Bible the Official State Book?  Members of the state congress suggest that having a state book is not different then having any other state symbol, an official beverage, milk; an official wild animal, the raccoon; an official fruit, the tomato; and, for Christ’s sake, an official state rifle, the M82 sniper rifle.  Comparing the holy bible with a sniper rifle really makes me want to scratch my head.

            In reality, Tennessee’s vote is only a very thinly veiled attempt to establish Christianity as a “preferred religion”, and to place other religions on an inferior basis.  If this is not true, then why pick the Bible?  Why not the Torah or Koran?  Or for that matter, why not “Fifty Shades of Grey”, it’s more interesting than reading the Bible, easier to understand and very educational.  The religious major in Tennessee must feel completely comfortable in establishing a preferred religion regardless of the fact that this country of ours was established, in part, because people wanted to worship as they damn well please, not as others told them.  Tennesseans and other states too, must have forgotten about this freedom of religion thing.

            The actions of Tennessee’s legislature, though, goes beyond violating the United States Constitution (as well as the State of Tennessee’s constitution), it violates one of the fundamental rules of Christianity, The Golden Rule.  Those favoring adoption of the Bible as the state book violate not only the Constitution but also Christianity.  It’s really frustrating when what you want to do contradicts what you believe in, isn’t it?

            The uncompromising belief in religious freedom is particularly pungent now in the face of the masses of people who are fleeing the on-slaught ISIS and those who want to build fences to keep people out.  People who are facing religious persecution now are not welcomed by those who came to America after facing similar persecution years ago.  It seems that as time goes on, Americans are not becoming more tolerant and more respectful of others but are becoming more narrow-minded and less tolerant.  We seem to have entirely forgotten that Christianity started with two refugees seeking asylum in a small hamlet about 6 miles south of Jerusalem called Bethlehem.  As for now, Tennessee’s governor, Bill Haslam, has vetoed the legislation and the Tennessee congress has sworn to over-rule him.

 

Terry A. AmRhein

Democracy on the Edge, A Discussion of Political Issues in America