- Americans have chosen Republican businessman Donald Trump to succeed Barack Obama as president. Trump won 306 electoral votes with 46 percent support against 232 electoral votes and 48 percent support for Democrat Hillary Clinton.
- Clinton fell short in key states, including Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.
- Republicans also defended their majorities in Congress. They are projected to win 236 seats in the House of Representatives, where 218 are needed for a majority, and 51 seats in the Senate. Read more “Trump Defeats Clinton in Unexpectedly Close Election”
Hillary Clinton can afford to lose several of the states that are leaning her way and still prevail in America’s presidential election on Tuesday.
By contrast, her rival, Donald Trump, must triumph in all states that have voted Republican in recent elections and then some.
Barring an upset, the first results from the East Coast should tell us if Clinton is indeed likely to succeed Barack Obama in January. Read more “Electoral College Projections Favor Clinton”
The week before election day is always nerve-wracking, this year’s near-apocalyptic feel notwithstanding.
So perhaps it’s fate that in the most contested election in decades, the gap between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is narrowing.
According to FiveThirtyEight, the Democrat enjoyed a 6.8-percent lead in the popular vote projection on October 18. As of November 2, it’s a 3.5-percent lead. The race is tightening. Read more “Trump Closes In, But Clinton Has Four Structural Advantages”
I thought we were done with this, but it’s one week out from the election and Hillary Clinton’s emails are a thing again.
We still don’t know why exactly. In a letter to Congress on Friday that resurrected the issue, James Comey, the FBI director, wrote that more emails that “appear to be pertinent to the investigation” had been recovered.
We have since learned that those emails were recovered from the laptop of former Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner, who is under investigation for allegedly sexting a minor and whose estranged wife, Huma Abedin, is a top Clinton campaign staffer.
Comey told Congress the FBI could not yet assess if the emails found on Weiner’s computer were relevant to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state; an investigation that was closed earlier this year after the FBI found she had done nothing illegal.
So what was the point of informing Congress? Read more “Clinton’s Emails Crowd Out Trump Scandals for No Good Reason”
Four years ago, the Atlantic Sentinel was split on whether to endorse Barack Obama or Mitt Romney for president. We share the Democrats’ social liberalism and respected the president’s foreign policy, but we were drawn to the Republican’s energy and fiscal policies.
This year, it’s no contest at all. Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, is totally unfit for the office he seeks. Read more “Hillary Clinton Is the Only Serious Candidate in This Election”
Voting is an exercise in compromise: Any winner has to get the most votes — i.e., the “first past the post” system. I may believe my old professor, my local police captain, my boss or my well-read uncle would make the best officeholder in any particular election. But writing them in would be useless, since no one gets into office on the strength of one vote.
First past the post means that in the majority of American elections, only two candidates stand a plausible chance of winning: the Democrat and the Republican.
Does this limit our options? Of course. But a better system doesn’t (yet) exist, which means that when you vote for a third party, you abdicate your right to affect the outcome.
Third parties will tell you that viability isn’t the point. Voting for them sends an unfiltered, uncompromised message that your views are not represented by Democrats or Republicans. Instinctively, that makes sense. Who’s to tell you to vote against your conscience? And if both candidates are equally objectionable, is there harm done if withholding your support from one helps elect the other? Read more “Your Third-Party Statement Is Not Worth Trump”
Saturday will see Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump face off in the first of three planned televised debates between the presidential candidates.
James Fallows, in a preview of the debates for The Atlantic, argues they are “must-watch TV” because they will see the most extreme contrast of personal, intellectual and political styles in American democratic history: “Right brain versus left brain; gut versus any portion of the brain at all; impulse versus calculation; id versus superego; and of course man versus woman.”
No doubt, with Trump’s penchant for spectacle, the debates will be watched by many — tens, maybe hundreds of millions around the world.
But will they matter? Read more “Clinton-Trump Debates Unlikely to Change Many Voters’ Minds”
Hillary Clinton has a new plan to stop what she considers “unjustified” increases in drug prices.
Slate reports that her plan comes down to European-style price control.
As president, Clinton would create a task force of regulators with the power to decide whether price increases on old, essential medicines and devices were reasonable given product improvements and the amount of competition in the market. If not, the task force would have the power to mete out punishments to companies that were trying to profiteer, potentially with fines.
Fines would still require an act of Congress, where market-friendly Republicans are likely to retain their majority in the House of Representatives and block such penalties.
Nonetheless, as Slate puts it, “Clinton is subtly sending the message that she’s comfortable moving toward a more European system in which regulators have a direct say not just in what drug companies can charge the government, but what they can charge the rest of the public, too.”
It may not happen in the first four years of a Hillary Clinton presidency, but price controls are becoming Democratic Party policy — which means they could happen eventually. Read more “Clinton’s Plan to Control Drug Prices Seems Like an Overreach”
Former American secretary of state Hillary Clinton warned on Thursday that her rival for the presidency, Donald Trump, is enabling a far-right takeover of the Republican Party.
The Democrat argued in a speech delivered in Reno, Nevada that Trump is part of a wider “alternative right” movement that includes British Euroskeptics and Russian president Vladimir Putin.
“The names may have changed,” she said.
Racists now call themselves “racialists.” White supremacists now call themselves “white nationalists.” The paranoid fringe now calls itself “alt-right.” But the hate burns just as bright.
Trump — “a man,” according to Clinton, “with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far, dark reaches of the Internet” — surrounds himself with these people.
Only last week, he appointed Stephen Bannon of Breitbart, a far-right “news” site, as his campaign chief. Read more “Trump Enabling Far-Right Takeover of Republican Party: Clinton”
Nicholas Kristof had a good column in this weekend’s The New York Times about the very different relationships Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have with the truth.
Whereas the Democrat will at times obfuscate the truth, the Republican appears to have no shame and tells blatant lies even after he’s been called out on them.
Here is how Kristof puts it:
If Clinton declares that she didn’t chop down a cherry tree, that might mean that she actually used a chain saw to cut it down. Or that she ordered an aide to chop it down. As for Trump, he will insist, “I absolutely did not chop down that cherry tree,” even as he clutches the ax with which he chopped it down moments earlier on Facebook Live.
Yet others in the media treat the two presidential candidates’ distortions as if they were similar. Read more “There’s No Comparing Clinton’s Untruthfulness to Trump’s”