Longshots and Likely Outcomes

The date that has been looming on our calendars for so very long is upon us. And then life changes. And we don’t know what our country will look like the day after.

Found on Facebook,
credited to TheFreeThoughtProject.com 

I don’t know what is going to happen. But I thought it wouldn’t hurt to look at some of the least likely outcomes, and then look at what we can probably expect.

No One Gets 270 Electoral Votes

The 270 number is half of the country’s electoral votes. If the two major candidates are close, and a third candidate gets some electoral votes (wins in at least one state). Then no one automatically gets declared the winner. If this happens, then a weird rule takes over: the US Congress chooses the president.

This isn’t an impossibility. For the first time in half a century, a third candidate might possibly win a state’s electors. The most likely is independent candidate Evan McMullin, who has a chance of winning Utah, where he’s within the margin of error in the latest polls. (He was up by several points in some polls the week the audio came out of Trump from ten years ago claiming he’d sexually assaulted women with impunity.)

A less likely possibility would be Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson winning New Mexico, where he served as governor.

If it came to this standoff, so Congress has the historic opportunity to decide the presidency, what would they do? I think the assumption has to be that they would favor the candidate of their party, which is Republican.

Evan McMullin worked as a policy advisor to Congress. He is known there, particularly by Republicans. McMullin has been a conservative Republican all along, and is only running as an independent for the election—in contrast to Donald Trump, who is running as a Republican only for the election and has never been a conservative. Since the two main candidates are both strongly disliked by a majority of the country, it’s not inconceivable that there would be a sense of relief that we could choose someone else. So it’s not out of the question that Congress could elect McMullin. 

But it’s still unlikely. Pressure from the electorate would sound deafening. Many would fear to do anything except vote for their party’s nominee--unless something even more horrible comes out about Trump, like a sudden sexual assault arrest or some other provable accusation leading to prison.

The Electoral College Rebels

Contrary to popular belief, we don’t directly elect the president. We elect representatives of our state’s votes. This design was to protect the votes of all, rather than to allow large urban centers or particular regions from having all the say. Check out the Prager U video, if you need to review (here and here).

One of the less likely purposes for the electoral college is to address the scenario that the popularly elected president turns out to be unacceptable (new information comes out of criminal activity or moral turpitude). The electors wouldn’t be forced to vote for such a dirtbag; they could change their vote.

During the past week, this started to look like a possible outcome if Hillary got indicted between election day and the electoral college vote on December 19. Over the weekend FBI Director Comey came out again to say he didn’t recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton for her multiple breaches of national security. In the meantime, a Democrat elector from Washington State has promised not to vote for her, regardless of the popular vote outcome.

Since her known crimes so far have failed to bring even an indictment, despite all the aides pleading the 5^th (i.e., admitting wrongdoing), and because the corruption in the entire Department of Justice is led by the current administration, who is ideologically aligned with her, we can’t expect truth and accuracy. The likelihood of more electors stepping up and refusing to vote for this criminal is low, alas.

One of the Main Candidates Becomes President

This is indeed the likely outcome. I’m not sitting on the edge of my seat, anxious to know which of them that will be. My guess is that it will be Hillary Clinton—the most corrupt, most socialist, most unsuitable candidate ever to step into the Oval Office.

Found on Facebook,
credited to Being Libertarian

Here’s one more longshot: those rumors about her ill health turn out to be true, and she becomes incapable of carrying out her duties as president. That would leave us with a vice-president stepping up. Tim Kaine is probably not better in policy, but it would be hard to be as corrupt as she is, so that would be considered a slight improvement. Also, because he would be unelected, Congress might be willing to stand up to him, we could hope.

There is a pair of Daily News Editorials—one laying out the case against Trump, followed by one laying out the case against Hillary. 

There’s enough accuracy in both that it brings to mind the battle of wits scene from The Princess Bride. Vizzini lists the reasons “I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you,” and then lists the reasons “I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.” Clearly either choice was deadly, as Vizzini shortly learned the hard way.

But, since one of the two choices will be foisted on us, what happens from Wednesday on?

Four years ago, the morning after a disappointing election, which made me feel that America was lost, this scripture came to mind:

Philippians 4:8

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

I’ve been trying to do that since. 

There are—and will be—things that are just wrong, that seem intolerable, things which should not be tolerated. But we cannot live our lives in outrage. We need to live. We can live as best we can, as most of humankind has had to do, without the blessing of the freedom, prosperity, and civilization we know we are missing. Whatever our circumstances, we can still live good lives.

Rising Sun Chair, Independence Hall

My Facebook friend Shawn Rogers wrote this prediction this morning:

My final election prediction: This election will end. The sun will come up on Wednesday, and again on Thursday. The consequences won't be as horrible as the losing side thinks they will be. And the results won't be as fantastic as the winning side thinks they will be. We'll have new political battles to fight. But life will go on. Families will go on. Faith will go on. Joy, hope, and happiness will still be within reach.

I think that we need a hopeful approach, for ourselves, our families, and our communities, even when w have less hope for our country as a whole. We need to live in gratitude, so that we can be guided to do what is best to do with our lives.

A couple of weeks I read an outsider’s perspective I thought was helpful. This is from Dan Hannan, a British conservative MEP:

Each presidential campaign thrives on fear of the other. Trump’s supporters tell us that Clinton’s judicial nominations will fundamentally transform America, tilting the balance toward authoritarianism. Clinton’s supporters retort that Trump is a quasi-fascist.

Both sides misunderstand, or affect to misunderstand, the Constitution. The United States was designed precisely to contain the ambitions of its rulers. Jefferson and Hamilton had seen arbitrary rule first-hand, and were determined to ensure that even the most Caligulan leader could not create an autocracy. We might almost say that they had Trump, or someone very like Trump, in mind when they drew up the rules.

Despite what Pelosi says, it is the Republican nominee who, in the unlikely event of his election, would be likely to face impeachment. There would be scant sympathy for President Trump in either House, and he seems to have as little concern for constitutional propriety as he has for telling the truth. Indeed, the only truly persuasive argument for electing him is the “Vote Trump, Get Pence” line.

What, though, of Clinton? … Is there not a danger that, by unbalancing the Supreme Court, she would transform the United States into an altogether more nannying and dirigiste nation?

Again, the Founders had her number. Barring some truly extraordinary electoral bouleversement, [Hillary] will not have a free hand in her first two years; nor, given the usual pattern of mid-term elections, is that likely to change in the second two years.

American liberty is too deeply rooted to be wrecked by a couple of judges. Take the most commonly voiced concern among conservatives. Suppose that a Clinton-made Supreme Court overturned the Heller verdict—that is, the ruling that interprets the Second Amendment as meaning that an individual can own and carry weapons.

The day after such a reversal would look just like the day before it. No state constitution would be amended. No legislation would be mandated at either federal or state level.

That’s what checks and balances mean: No president, no Supreme Court, has absolute power. The system, you might say, works….

I've never known Americans to be as gloomy about politics as now. And, looking at the two main candidates, I sympathize. But I can't bring myself to share in their pessimism. The United States has lasted for as long as it has, through foreign wars and civil strife, because the Constitution is bigger than any politician….

America [is] the wealthiest and the freest, because its system of government elevates the individual over the collective.

No single president, however demented, can undo the work of two-and-a-half centuries. That’s the true meaning of American exceptionalism.

It may be that he is right. It may be that, even with the most dire predictions, our lives will still go on, for the most part as before, albeit with more weight upon our shoulders as we go about the work of living.

But we can go on living. We’re still in a land of great freedom and prosperity, compared to most of world history. And we must enjoy whatever good we have, so that we know not to let that good be taken.

Debate Aftermath

It was the most-watched political event in the history of television, but I didn’t watch the presidential debate last night. I was traveling. But I probably wouldn’t have watched it anyway. I have only a peripheral interest, since the constitutional republic of the United States of America is not what these two candidates wish to preside over. One wants to rule over the United Socialist States of America—a country and concept I do not agree to be ruled by. One wants to rule over the National Dictatorship of America, which will be great, and yuge, believe it—except I don’t believe it.

Trump and Clinton first debate 2016
Image from here

I learned one thing during this past eight years: don’t listen to the speeches. I read, instead of watch or listen.  With Obama, it has had to do with his tone. I hear condescension, and disdain for me and people who believe as I do, because we are a hindrance to him and his anti-constitutional intentions. And there are the grating verbal tics—the ubiquitous ums and uhs, the use of “folks” that never sounds real, the use of a long a when the indefinite article a comes before a consonant, even though none of us talk that way normally, which means it’s an affectation or a teleprompter-reading problem. So even the little things grate. Listening is not only hard on me, it makes me harder on the speaker than I would be without the additional auditory and visual input.

And last night we had two of the most grating voices America could come up with. Hillary sounds like she is always yelling. She sounds stiff, stilted, and annoyed—as if it is beneath her to condescend to do this talking to the public that a campaign requires. The term harpy seems to have been created for such a voice. If she were saying things that were valuable to our constitutional republic, the voice would be something we would just have to be tolerant and forgiving of. But, in her case, the voice comes with lies, deceptions, and power-mongering. I think we’re justified in hating that voice.

Then comes the carnival barker voice of Donald Trump. Like a used car salesman, he hides the details and just says, “Believe me,” when he has provided nothing beyond is over-bloated personal opinion to go on. It is an unseemly voice, often speaking unseemly and anti-constitutional things. Some people find that voice entertaining on a reality TV show; it was unappealing to me even when that is all it was.

So, I did not watch. But I will be looking at transcripts. And I offer that as a better tool for judging how the debate went, if you care.

So that you can experience the debate without the talking over one another, and without the tonal problems, here is the full transcript.

Here is a partial transcript interspersed with an NPR attempt to fact check (so consider the source). 

I am beyond believing any presidential choice this year can get us out of tyranny, back up to northern hemisphere freedom. I am interested in what I can do to make my community, my state, and then my nation a place of freedom, prosperity, and civilization. 

This debate offers me no option for my vote. But if a future debate includes independent candidate Evan McMullin and, possibly, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson (who is not on my list to possibly get my vote, but who should be in on the debate), I might be willing to tune in. 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream

A couple of weeks ago I read this piece by Stu Burguiere, which I thought was entertaining but impossible. But because I’ve been looking for something to hope for. Stu describes his scenario:

First, don’t try to get to 270 electoral votes. If no candidate gets to 270, then the Constitution dictates that the incoming House of Representatives would vote for President. Each state delegation would get one vote. The good news? Republicans currently hold over 30 of the state delegations, and therefore would select the next President from the top three candidates with electoral votes. You must have at least one electoral vote to be considered.

There are plenty of logistical problems with this, which we can address in a moment. But, let’s address the most pressing first. How does this NOT help Hillary Clinton?

The answer: You have to be very selective. Don’t try to get on the ballots of 50 states, or even 25. The goal is to get on the ballot of a few deep red states that Hillary Clinton has no chance of winning anyway. Essentially, you hurt Trump without helping Hillary.

Again: we never take one vote from Donald Trump in a state that Hillary Clinton can win.

Here are the scenarios that could happen:

1.       If Hillary gets 270, she’s the President. But she wins entirely with electoral votes from states in which our conservative third party candidate is not on the ballot. In other words, we had nothing to do with her victory.

2.       If Trump wins in a convincing way, he’s the President. Even if he loses a few of our small deep red states, he’ll still have more than enough to get 270 electoral votes if he can pull off a decent amount of the purple states where he goes head to head with Hillary.

3.       If Trump wins in a squeaker and would have just cleared 270 electoral votes, our candidate would grab enough electoral votes to throw it to the House. Then the Constitutional magic happens.

Do I think this scenario is likely to play out? No. Is it possible? Maybe.

What matters to me is having a soul-saving alternative for my vote. Of course I could never vote for Hillary; that would be like saying, “I never loved America, and I always thought the Constitution, and even the rule of law, were passé guidelines, and I much prefer corruption and tyranny.” So, no.

And I would never vote for Trump because he is a narcissistic, authoritarian bully—something like we’ve suffered under for the past two terms, but with even more obvious character flaws. So, no.

That means that I need an alternative. That could be a third-party or independent candidate, or a write-in. I’ve been willing to write-in Ted Cruz, even if I’m told I’m not allowed to, if it comes down to that. Or I would leave that race blank—which comes with some risks, because presidential undervote is rare and might look invalid.

So I was willing to hear from Gary Johnson. Some people I respect like him. He was reportedly a good Republican governor of New Mexico. Already he’s better than Hillary or Donald. 

But there are some big flaws. He’s ready to legalize drugs—let the buyer (addict) beware. He’s pro-abortion—because it’s about doing what you want—even though in this case there’s another human life at stake. And his stance on religious freedom is more than troublesome. He sees it as an issue of religions using their beliefs as an excuse for bigotry, so government should step in and coerce service.

The issue at stake here is mainly about same-sex “marriage,” and requiring bakers, photographers, and florists to perform services against their religious beliefs. Johnson, who usually qualifies as a libertarian, thinks government ought to override religious freedom and coerce the services. I’ve heard him explain that position a couple of times; every time his clarification makes me sure I heard him right the first time.

So, Gary Johnson would almost certainly be less bad than the two main party candidates. But if I’’m looking for a soul-saving vote, he’s not it.

Then, on Monday, a new candidate entered the race.

Evan McMullin for President
image from here

His name is Evan McMullin. Chances are you’ve never heard of him before this week. I hadn’t. But if you’re looking for a candidate with national security, economic, and legislative experience, he’s there. He spent a decade as an anti-terrorism specialist with the CIA. Then he got an MBA and worked a few years for Goldman-Sachs. Then he went to work as a policy advisor for the House of Representatives.

He’s a conservative Republican—running as an independent. Normally an independent getting into the race this late would be hardly noticeable, because there would be no chance. Maybe it would be about getting a little attention for a particular issue or point of view. But in this case McMullin might be noteworthy.

He happens to be a Mormon. To us Mormons, or those who know Mormons really well, we know what it takes to live that lifestyle. We’re pretty much the definition of social conservatives. No alcohol or drugs. No sex outside of marriage. Honest. Trustworthy. Kind. Charitable and service oriented.

It’s not something you can easily fake. We’re very connected people. While I don’t yet know anyone who personally knows McMullin, I wouldn’t be surprised if I come across someone who has in the next couple of weeks.

This is important, because there are a lot of Latter-day Saints who love America, are loyal to the Constitution, and despise the idea that either Clinton or Trump might become president. They’ve been looking at Gary Johnson—or any other alternative—to possibly deserve their vote.

McMullin is opening and headquartering his campaign in Utah. It’s actually possible that he could win in Utah. And maybe also Idaho and other Intermountain West states with a significant Mormon population. I don’t know if we’ve got big enough numbers to help in many other states. But if he wins a few states, that might be enough to trigger Stu’s scenario.

McMullin claims he is working to be competitive in all states, that things are underway to get his name on the ballot. We’ll see if he can pull that off.

Since Monday, I’ve heard him interviewed on Hugh Hewitt’s Tuesday morning radio show (might require subscription to hear). Hewitt is conservative, but he doesn’t suffer fools easily. It was respectful, and McMullin presented himself well.

Then I saw a longish Bloomberg interview, from Monday. McMullin had a chance to go over his history and background, his policies, and his reasons for getting into the race. He waited, hoping someone with more name recognition would step up. But, at this nearly last minute, he decided to go for it. He’s had a team looking into the possibilities for some months, because there are some big challenges getting on ballots across the country.

There’s a Monday night ABC News interview where he takes on Clinton and Trump, asserting they are both are "woefully unfit for the responsibilities they seek." While he’s careful about the words he uses, he doesn’t hold back. I think it was in this interview I heard him say, "I've spent my life trying to serve and avoiding the limelight. Trump has spent his life avoiding service and seeking the limelight."

He was interviewed on Glenn Beck Radio this morning, and again presented himself well.    

   

Chances are you’re going to hear more about this quixotic candidacy. You might as well go to the source and see what he says about the issues:

·         National Security

·         Jobs and the Economy

·         Education

·         America’s Role in the World

·         Health Care

·         Energy and the Environment

·         Government Accountability

·         Life

·         Poverty

·         Veterans

·         The Second Amendment

·         Trade

·         Immigration

He’s got a statement on each. I’ve read them. For the most part we’re in agreement. Even where we’re not exactly aligned, I don’t know yet if that is careful speaking on his part. I was for Ted Cruz all the way. Cruz speaks in bold capital letters. McMullin speaks sotto voce but mostly head on. There’s enough here that I want to know more.

This is a little like starting to date someone. You’ve had a really good first date. Wanted to keep talking. Want to get together again really soon. See if this will go somewhere. You want it to. Especially because—as a twist to the story—you’ve got three months to make the commitment or you’ll lose your inheritance. Something like that.

So, I’m not sure I know everything I need to know just three days into the relationship. But I’m hopeful. I’d like to have a country-saving vote. But at the very least, I’m hopeful that in McMullin I’ll have a soul-saving vote.