New Year - New Memes
Saw this one today.
In case this is the first of my blogs that you've read, I am not a fan of Donald J. Trump. I did not vote for Hillary Clinton, I voted against Donald Trump. But I feel compelled to point out that this meme's simplistic approach to comparing the margin of popular vote loss between 2016, 1824, 1872 and 1888 are plain wrong.
In the 2016 election, roughly 42% of the U.S. population voted. In those other three elections, the percentages look like this:
1824 - 3.3%
1876 - 20.5%
1888 - 21.7%
At the time of the 2016 election, the U.S. population was 324,000,000. In those other three elections, the population figures look like this:
1824 - 10,800,000
1876 - 41,000,000
1888 - 52,500,000
If we adjust the margin of loss for those much earlier elections, when the population and turnout were much lower, the margins of loss look like this:
1824 - John Quincy Adams loses by 14.2 million votes
1876 - Rutherford B. Hayes loses by 4 million votes
1888 - Benjamin Harrison loses by 1.1 million votes.
It is kind of dumb to compare the number of votes a presidential candidate loses by in 1824 to one who lost in 2016 when you consider how much change has taken place in the interim.
* * *
Again, not a fan of Trump. But did the hacking of the Russians really change the result of the 2016 general election? Did people who were going to vote for Hillary Clinton change their minds because of the fake news, the professional trolls and the leaked emails of John Podesta? Probably. But how do you prove that all of the votes that Secretary Clinton did not receive were due to these things as opposed to:
The "Basket of Deplorables" comment.
The actions of the Democratic National Committee to systematically deny Bernie Sanders any real chance at the nomination.
Secretary Clinton's choice to virtually ignore Michigan and Wisconsin.
The choice to use a private email server located in her home.
The presence of all those emails on the laptop computer of Anthony Weiner.
Donna Brazile's choice to give Secretary Clinton advance knowledge of debate questions.
Could she have won without the hacking? Maybe. Maybe not. But all those other factors were involved.
* * *
In case this is the first of my blogs that you've read, I am not a fan of Donald J. Trump. I did not vote for Hillary Clinton, I voted against Donald Trump. But I feel compelled to point out that this meme's simplistic approach to comparing the margin of popular vote loss between 2016, 1824, 1872 and 1888 are plain wrong.
In the 2016 election, roughly 42% of the U.S. population voted. In those other three elections, the percentages look like this:
1824 - 3.3%
1876 - 20.5%
1888 - 21.7%
At the time of the 2016 election, the U.S. population was 324,000,000. In those other three elections, the population figures look like this:
1824 - 10,800,000
1876 - 41,000,000
1888 - 52,500,000
If we adjust the margin of loss for those much earlier elections, when the population and turnout were much lower, the margins of loss look like this:
1824 - John Quincy Adams loses by 14.2 million votes
1876 - Rutherford B. Hayes loses by 4 million votes
1888 - Benjamin Harrison loses by 1.1 million votes.
It is kind of dumb to compare the number of votes a presidential candidate loses by in 1824 to one who lost in 2016 when you consider how much change has taken place in the interim.
* * *
Again, not a fan of Trump. But did the hacking of the Russians really change the result of the 2016 general election? Did people who were going to vote for Hillary Clinton change their minds because of the fake news, the professional trolls and the leaked emails of John Podesta? Probably. But how do you prove that all of the votes that Secretary Clinton did not receive were due to these things as opposed to:
The "Basket of Deplorables" comment.
The actions of the Democratic National Committee to systematically deny Bernie Sanders any real chance at the nomination.
Secretary Clinton's choice to virtually ignore Michigan and Wisconsin.
The choice to use a private email server located in her home.
The presence of all those emails on the laptop computer of Anthony Weiner.
Donna Brazile's choice to give Secretary Clinton advance knowledge of debate questions.
Could she have won without the hacking? Maybe. Maybe not. But all those other factors were involved.
* * *
posted by me at 8:56 PM
<< Home