NY Times Just Can’t Move On From Hillary Losing

NY Times Just Can’t Move On From Hillary Losing

It was one year ago today that we held a national election for President. By the end of the day, Democrats would realize that they would not be celebrating Hillary in the White House, and would have to deal with President Donald Trump. Since that time, they’ve been more unhinged than normal, whining about this, that, and the other, calling for impeachment, and even assassination. They’ve trotted out fantasies of ways Hillary could end up replacing Trump as president. And they’ve never gotten over how the Electoral College system works, such as this whiny NY Times Editorial Board piece

Editorial: Let the People Pick the President

The winners of Tuesday’s elections — Republican or Democrat, for governor, mayor or dogcatcher — all have one thing in common: They received more votes than their opponent. That seems like a pretty fair way to run an electoral race, which is why every election in America uses it — except the most important one of all.

Was it just a year ago that more than 136 million Americans cast their ballots for president, choosing Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by nearly three million votes, only to be thwarted by a 200-year-old constitutional anachronism designed in part to appease slaveholders and ratified when no one but white male landowners could vote?

It feels more like, oh, 17 years — the last time, incidentally, that the American people chose one candidate for president and the Electoral College imposed the other.

In both cases the loser was a Democrat, a fact that has tempted more than a few people to dismiss complaints about the Electoral College as nothing but partisan sour grapes. That’s a mistake….

No, it’s not a mistake. It is sour grapes. Pure sour, stepped on, left in the sun sour grapes. As you’d expect, the NYTEB continues on in their own reasoning as to why there should be a direct election of POTUS, because they just can’t move on.

What they forget is that Hillary did not win an absolute majority of votes. That’s right, she only took 48% of the votes. Trump and 3rd party candidates won the rest. Bill Clinton never won an absolute majority in either of his elections, either. They won the plurality, but, are we to elect a president based on plurality? Do we institute a run-off system, where people would then vote for the top two candidates, which an absolute majority did not necessarily support? Because if we went to a direct election system, there would be lots of people on the ballot, and they’d be competitive.

There are lots of reasons why we have an Electoral College, and they aren’t primarily because of slavery, as the NYTEB wants you to believe. I’m not going to go over them again. You know them, and Democrats will play dumb, because that’s what they do. If they’re still upset, perhaps they should think of why they rigged the primary in order to nominate a terrible candidate, who was less than personable, who enjoyed slurring a huge segment of the population, who passed out on camera, was beyond polarizing, and ran a poor campaign, not even bothering to visit states she needed in order to win.

So, stop whining. Start acting like adults. Yeah, yeah, I know, wasting my breath saying that to Democrats.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!