The Electoral College and the Right to Own Pets!

In the wake of the contentious presidential election of 2016, many experts and most Americans probably agree, at least on this. Our great nation is deeply divided. 

Trump supporters feel liberals—sometimes referred to as “libtards” in their Facebook posts or in memes—want to take away their guns and burn their Bibles for fun. 

Trump foes (I happen to be one) wonder if he’ll hold the Second Amendment sacred while trashing the rest. Too many on us (but not me) believe all Trump supporters are racists, or as one Facebook post I saw put it recently: ignorant “knuckle draggers.”

As a liberal and one who taught American history for years, I hope both sides in the current debates are wrong. But I do believe we need to have a solid grasp on our history to make wise judgments in turbulent times. For starters, we need to be realistic about who the Founding Fathers were and clear-eyed in assessing what they did. And a huge percentage of what they did was wonderfully right. Their distrust of concentrated power in any guise, from democratic to oligarchic, led them to strive for a careful balance of power in three equal branches, legislative, judicial and executive.

Speaking of branches, according to a 2014 article in the Washington Post, did you realize only 36% of Americans can name those three branches.

In any case, if you support Mr. Trump and hate the liberal media, and you believe the Post leans in the direction of Stalin, you might prefer a story from the Washington Times, a paper Sean Hannity might safely read while seated on the can. In 2015 the Times reported that 12% of Americans believed the Bill of Rights guaranteed the right to own pets. Reporters also noted that 32% of Americans could not name any of the branches of government.

Not one. 

Ordinary citizen giving it his or her best try: “The three branches? Uh…chocolate, vanilla and Beyonce?”

Luckily, we’re all safe because of the Founding Fathers. Or so the simplistic argument goes. Conservatives, in particular, make it sound as if the Founders got every comma and clause in the U.S. Constitution just right. And that means any change since 1787 brings us one giant leap nearer tyranny.

Right-wing love for those who wrote the U. S. Constitution has risen to fresh heights again, now that it appears Hillary Clinton will win the popular vote in 2016. Well, not to worry, because if Clinton does it won't matter at all. The Founding Fathers made sure the Electoral College would be there to save us all.

Also our pets!

I can say much for certain. I know some of what I say is only my opinion. On Facebook, however, several conservative friends sent me the same link to a video about how the Electoral College works. I guess they thought I needed to know or it might make me feel somehow better.

Well: I already knew. 

It is true that the Founding Fathers had a healthy distrust for democracy. During the Constitutional Convention, Elbridge Gerry put the problems a new nation faced bluntly: “The ills we experience flow from an excess of democracy. The people do not want [lack] virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots.” 

Edmund Randolph agreed, noting, “that in tracing these evils to their origin every man [here] had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” 

So we need an Electoral College. Right?

Let’s stop and think a moment. Let’s look at what the Founding Fathers knew and a bit of what they didn’t. We know they never imagined women voting. According to the latest figures, Mrs. Clinton took the women’s vote by 12%. Trump took the men’s vote by a similar margin. In other words, if we had only listened to the Founding Fathers in every respect, women could spend the next four years blaming husbands and brothers and male in-laws for all the problems that occur.

Of course the Founding Fathers didn’t allow African-Americans to vote. (They were more likely to own them.) You may recall, if you had an excellent history teacher, that they agreed to count five African-Americans as three white persons in dividing up seats in the brand new House of Representatives.

Admit it, now. Think how interesting this would have made watching Fox News this past Election Night. Can’t you see Megyn Kelly explaining: “Well, in Florida, Hillary Clinton has a lead among African-American voters of 500,000, but in counting, these equal only 300,000 white votes.”

Don't forget the Founders thought it was a good idea to keep poor white men from voting, as well.

I’m getting to the Electoral College; but first, a little more background. And for this, I do not consult some lame internet source, but turn to Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison, himself.

The Founding Fathers—at least Madison and a handful of others—first met in convention on May 14, 1787. There weren’t enough delegates to open for business. So they voted to delay. No representatives from Rhode Island ever showed up.

Once debate began, the Founding Fathers quickly agreed, “We really, really need  an Electoral College!”

Ha, ha. 

Not a chance.

Instead, Roger Sherman, representing Connecticut, wanted an “executive” (that’s the president for those who can’t tell) “to be appointed by and accountable to the Legislature only, which was the depository of the supreme will of Society.”

Randolph, speaking for Virginia, was clear. He didn’t want one executive. He said we should elect three.

James Wilson, from Pennsylvania, noted correctly (and keep this in mind for today) that in all the states executives were elected by the people—and he supported that plan in choosing a national executive. In his opinion, the president should be elected every three years and be eligible to run again.

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, from South Carolina, insisted that the office of president should be filled every seven years. Naturally, he added, a president should not be allowed to stand for reelection.

So it was, on June 1, 1787, that the Founding Fathers, voting by states, approved a seven-year presidential term, with no chance of reelection, by a 5-4-1 vote. (Massachusetts delegates were divided.)

The following day, they agreed again on a method for choosing the executive. Gerry expressed doubts about allowing the legislative branch of any new government to choose the president. Then again, “He was not clear that the people ought to act directly...being too little informed of personal characters in large districts, and liable to deceptions.” It was time for the Founding Fathers to do some founding!

Wilson’s idea, to let the people elect the president directly, was put to a vote. By an 8-2 margin, that idea went down.

Madison’s notes continue: “On the question for electing the Executive by the national Legislature for the term of seven years it was agreed to Mass^ts ay. Con^t ay. N. Y. ay. Pen^a no. Del ay. Mary^d no. V^a ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo ay.” 

Huh? 

At first, there was no idea for an Electoral College at all.

This idea, pedaled so furiously now that somehow we must cling to this outdated mechanism, this Electoral College, because the Founding Fathers said so, that we won’t be safe if we don’t, is pure political nonsense. 

Oh, democracy is terrible! The people will be duped.

Was this true in 1980 or 1984 when Ronald Reagan was elected and reelected by large popular majorities?

Did we need an Electoral College in 1984, when President Reagan turned back a challenge by Walter Mondale, winning 58.8% of the popular vote? (Reagan won 525 electoral votes; poor Mondale 13).

On the Republican side, George W. Bush won the popular vote in 2004. And all was well. Nixon won twice, clobbering George McGovern, 61-38% in 1972. Eisenhower won twice. Hoover won and Coolidge and Harding. 

Abraham Lincoln did too.

Ah, but conservatives quickly insist (whenever their side doesn’t win, as in 2000, or now, in all likelihood, in 2016), “Oh, thank god for the Founding Fathers, who, in their wisdom, created an Electoral College!”

You can buy that stupid argument if you like; but it doesn’t make it any less stupid to claim that the Founding Fathers always got everything right, or that what made sense to them more than 200 years ago has to make sense now. In any case, I’ve had my say for today and I feel a little better. 

Now, if you’ll pardon me, I’m going to exercise my constitutional rights and take my dog for a nice walk.

Next U. S. Secretary of Education: Michelle Rhee????

Okay. Time to face reality. Mr. Donald J. Trump is going to be the 45th  president of these great United States. 

If nothing else, we know the KKK is happy. “Make American Great Again!” Overturn Roe v. Wade! Also, maybe: overturn Brown v. Board of Education.

Now we hear that Michelle Rhee might be in line to become the next U. S. Secretary of Education. If you have forgotten who Rhee is, or was, a brief refresher course will be offered momentarily.

First, let’s consider two more Trump choices who have said they are not interested. Dr. Ben Carson said no thanks—but would have been a “perfect choice” in a bi-partisan list of “perfect choices” to head the Department of Education. That is: presidents from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush to Barrack Obama have seemed constitutionally obligated to select individuals who lack all experience in education. 

I think Mr. Trump should make me Surgeon General. I mean, I watch a lot of TV shows about doctors and hospitals.

Anyway, it could be worse. I wonder if America’s four million front line educators were really ready for Ms. Eva Moskowitz to head the Department. Moskowitz was also under consideration, but informed the president-elect that she had no interest in the cabinet position. This is true even though Mr. Trump wants to push school choice even farther and even though Moskowitz believes every child should be allowed to attend an elite charter school—unless that child has serious behavior issues or crippling handicaps.

Those kinds of children, if they manage to get through the doors of Success Academy at all, should all return to the regular public schools.

Meanwhile, like so many leading advocates of school reform, who only care about the children, Moskowitz piles up the dough. I can’t find current figures; but she made $567,500 for the 2012-2013 school year, running Success Academy Charter Schools, an operation serving 11,000 students. Not bad, considering school superintendents in  large urban, public school districts with a hundred times as many students make half as much.

Then again, what did anyone expect when American education has been turned into a get-rich-quick, money-making scheme? Didn’t we realize shady operators would focus only on the money?

Exhibit A: Trump University!

Our normally litigious president-elect settled a series of fraud cases this week, aimed at his famous university, first denying fraud had been perpetrated in his name, and then coughing up $25 million to pay the claims of thousands of students who were prepared to argue in court that they had in fact been…um…defrauded. I realize many Trump fans don’t believe anything they read except what can be found on the backs of cereal boxes; but even Fox News couldn’t help reporting the Trump University debacle.

And if you haven’t noticed, you can pretty much shake any for-profit education tree and money-grubbers and even outright crooks will rain down round your ears. I’ve previously highlighted K-12, Inc., another stellar charter operation, where five top executives paid themselves a total of $35.4 million in salary and bonuses for 2013 and 2014. I’ve focused on Corinthian College. There, too, five top college officers took $22 million in salaries and bonuses over a two-year period. Sadly, once the U. S. Department of Education started investigating—citing high pressure recruiting tactics to juice enrollment—the Corinthian enterprise came unraveled and the school went belly up.  

(The money continues to roll in for the top officials at K-12, Inc. This chart shows compensation for Fiscal 2016.)

Too bad students, lacking preparation to do real college-level work, had been tricked into enrolling. 

To bad they had to borrow 86% of all money used to attend Corinthian. 

Too bad they agreed to pay interest rates as high as 17.9% for those very loans, nicely set up for them and payable to...Corinthian.

Good news? 

The profiteers profited. 

Now thousands of young Americans are stuck with those loans—and stuck with college credits from Corinthian of such dubious value that reputable institutions of higher learning won’t accept them for transfer.

And now, speaking of money, we come to the matter at hand: the potential elevation of Michelle Rhee to head up the U. S. Department of Education. 

Perhaps the most famous graduate of Teach for American, Rhee labored three long years in a real classroom, at which point she realized she knew everything there was to know about fixing the nation’s schools. Quickly, she rose through the ranks of educational bureaucracy and took control of the Washington, D. C. Public Schools. As chancellor, Ms. Rhee stressed improving math and reading scores in keeping with dictates of No Child Left Behind.

That law is now defunct; but raising scores in accord with that law was, according to Rhee at the time, really important.

What happened when Rhee pushed administrators and staff to improve test scores? As anyone could have predicted, successful schools raised their scores! If scores didn’t rise, Rhee fired staff and administrators. Typically, she fired one principal while cameras were rolling, filming a documentary about the wonders of Michelle Rhee. In just three years as head of Washington schools, Rhee managed to terminate hundreds of educators because scores on standardized tests mattered—as long as those particular tests were being pedaled by politicians and school reformers.

All the while, Ms. Rhee was making her name in education. She gave speeches and charged colleges $35,000 to impart her wisdom. She wrote books about how to fix education and they sold wonderfully. Even Oprah gave her love on her program. But Rhee’s abrasive style was also rubbing people the wrong way. 

True. There were educators who loved her. Those who raised test scores (and many did so with great gusto) got fat on bonuses. 

Unfortunately, for Rhee, reporters also started digging. 

At one school, Crosby S. Noyes Education Campus, test score improvements were stunning. In 2006 only 10% of students at Noyes scored “proficient” or “advanced” in math. Two years later 58% did. It was amazing; and Rhee basked in the admiration of the leading school reformers. In 2009, Noyes was one of 264 schools nationwide to win a prestigious National Blue Ribbon School award. Twice, in 2008 and 2010, Ms. Rhee awarded teachers at Noyes (which served preschoolers through eighth grade) $8,000 bonuses. Wayne Ryan, principal at the school, was awarded $10,000 on both occasions. 

Unfortunately, a 2011 report by USA Today revealed that high-performing schools in Rhee’s district had “extraordinarily high numbers of erasures on standardized tests. The consistent pattern was that wrong answers were erased and changed to right ones.” The pattern showed up in 103 schools, more than half of all buildings in the D. C. district. 

In 2009 seventh-graders in one class at Noyes averaged 12.7 wrong-to-right erasures on the reading test. 

The average, citywide, was less than 1. 

What transpired in the meantime? The D. C. schools won another $75 million in the “Race to the Top” program run by Arne Duncan, then U. S. Secretary of Education, because Duncan also loved standardized testing. Principal Ryan was featured in a series of recruiting advertisements, calling him “one of the shining stars of DCPS” and a man known for his “unapologetic focus on instruction.” 

The Office of State Superintendent of Education also began to notice all the fishy smells and ordered an investigation. Top D. C. school officials dragged their bureaucratic feet. The State Superintendent’s office asked McGraw-Hill to examine test results at 96 D. C. schools, including 8 of 10 buildings which won TEAM awards from Rhee “to recognize, reward and retain high-performing educators and support staff.” Based on rising scores in 2007 and 2008, more than $1.5 million in bonuses had been paid. Now McGraw-Hill found that three award-winning schools had wrong-to-right erasure rates that raised red flags in 85% of classrooms. After 2009, the district hired an outside investigator to examine eight schools, including Noyes. Just like that, test scores plunged in 2010. A second investigation, after tests were completed that year, found 41 schools, including Noyes again, had at least one classroom with unusually high numbers of erasures. 

When Rhee was reached by phone in 2011 she reminded reporters she was no longer chancellor of the D. C. schools and passed on chance to comment. D. C. officials also refused to comment at the time—refused to let reporters visit schools—refused to let them talk to principals, including Adell Cothorne, the new leader at Crosby S. Noyes Education Campus. 

And now we discover that Michelle Rhee might be our next U. S. Secretary of Education.

I can’t say where we’re headed in the future; but I am ready to make one bold prediction. If President Trump selects Rhee—and the Senate confirms her—we can expect one dramatic change in U. S. education. 

Test scores are surely going to rise!

(Eraser sales will also skyrocket.)

President Trump: Is the Earth Getting Hotter or Is It Just Melania?

Well, America is off to a flying start! You can almost hear the hammers and see a new wall rising along our southern border.

Meanwhile, my Trump-loving friends get mad when I mock the president-elect before he takes office. They say all good Americans should give Trump a chance. I admit I’m slightly inclined. I love this country and hope he aids the average worker—because the average worker truly needs aid. Did you know the average worker in the United States hasn’t gained ground, adjusting for inflation, since 1979?

You know who reported that yesterday? The New York Times. Yeah: the “biased mainstream media.”

I would, however, like to remind my Trump-loving friends, who gloss over all the suspiciously racist birther crap, and also ignore Trump’s response to the election of 2012, how much of a “chance” The Donald gave President Obama. Remember how he called for good people to march on Washington? (I think he was hoping Americans would grab their pitchforks and guns and bazookas, too.)

In any case, I’ve already explained why I fear that President Trump and his GOP pals won’t help the average worker at all.

Today, I’m going to have fun thinking about global warming—which Mr. Trump has called a Chinese hoax. What should we expect from his presidency where matters of the environment are concerned?

It turns out Myron Ebell, an environmental and energy policy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute is going to help shape the future. 

We now know Ebell and his kind are going to help determine what the world’s climate is like in twenty-five years, when my granddaughter is 28, and your children are 30 or 40 or 55, and I will likely be gone.

Who is he? 

Ebell is part of a group “focused on dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific and risk analysis.” He believes third-, fourth- and fifth-rate scientists have gotten names in the papers by pedaling false alarms. He says kooks like Al Gore “want to turn off the lights all over the world.”

Those dirty, light-bulb tampering rats! 

It’s like when the federal government wanted to take away our Bibles (none taken), and guns (100 million more sold during President Obama’s time in office), and screw with our high-capacity flush toilets (ignore the California drought or the depletion of the Ogallala aquafer), and now this. 

Not to worry! Ebell will save us and we can relax, knowing our lights will stay on and we’ve got our Bibles and guns. But back to global weather! Ebell says that Pope Francis was wrong when he issued an encyclical in 2015, warning about the dangers of climate change. Ebell calls the Pope “morally obtuse.” 

The encyclical was “leftist drivel.”

(This seems to be part of a trend where my right-wing friends say anyone who disagrees with them must be a communist. You like eggs over easy? Real Americans like them scrambled! You are a commie.)

But you know who Ebell does trust? The Murray Energy Corporation, one of the nation’s leading coal producers, which just so happens to donate to Ebell’s research group. (This reminds me of the research funded by cigarette companies, proving that, no, smoking won’t harm you; in fact cigarettes are good for little kids.)

Is there proof global warming is occurring now? Ebell says no.

Senator James Inhofe, another GOP stalwart, agrees. There can’t be global warming because after a heavy snowstorm in 2014 he made a snowball.

So let’s consider what scientists might refer to as compelling evidence. True: you can find stories that show the ice sheet in Antarctic is growing. One of my right-wing friends took the trouble to send me the link; and Ebell would no doubt be quick to point it out. In the same vein, here in Cincinnati, every time we have a cold snap, some fool caller to some right-wing WLW radio talk show opines: “Yeah, I’m freezing my ass off today. Gee, that proves global warming is a hoax!”

Pardon me a moment while I marvel at such ignorance.

And let’s start with an incontrovertible fact. A cruise ship, the Serenity, sailed across the Arctic Ocean this past summer, taking a route that—not counting icebreakers or submarines—has never been open to shipping before, not in all the recorded history of man, and probably not in ten thousand years.

That ship, at three football fields long and thirteen stories high, is larger and more permanent—and its voyage is far scarier in its implications, than Senator Inhofe’s snowball or all the snowballs he ever makes will ever be.

Look climate deniers: They call that a ship.

I know. Trump fans believe the mainstream media is out to get Trump. They only report what is bad. 

Scientists are lying too. 

The liberals want everyone to rot in the dark.

None of this is true. Indeed, we of a liberal slant are quite fond of electrical lighting and keeping appliances running. We simply distrust Big Corporate interests the way our right-wing friends distrust anything Big Government wants to do. In fact, we often distrust Big Government, ourselves.

(That will be a story for another day.)

We do, however, trust scientists generally and thermometers specifically. What was the hottest month of October—not locally, globally—ever recorded? What was the hottest September? Damn those NASA scientists—the same men and women who reported the Antarctic ice sheet had gained volume! They say it was this October. They say it was this past September! In fact, they have all kinds of evidence to support the theory that global warming is real and a growing threat to our future. Globally, what was the hottest month ever? According to NASA again it was August 2016—which, tied with July 2016 for that dubious honor. In fact, those “liars” keep right on, piling up lying statistics. October 2015 started a frightening streak: hottest October (globally) ever (till 2016), followed by November 2015, hottest November (globally) ever (till 2016), followed by all the months of 2016 in succession.

This means 2016 is certain to be the hottest year (globally) ever—like the Gisele Bundchen of hottest weather.

Gratuitous picture of Gisele Bundchen.

What was the previous hottest year (globally)? Scientists say: 2015. 

And before that? 2014. 

And before that? Damn it NASA! Quit reporting! If you would care to, you can go to the NASA website and read how century’s  old ice in the Arctic is melting, meaning the warming trend is accelerating. You can read how polar bears are screwed. You can read how, in the summer of 2015, most of Alaska experienced temperatures 10° above average, or how the entire Arctic was 7.17° hotter.

You can even read about a thaw under Greenland” giant ice cap, a story that should scare anyone with a fourth-grader’s grasp of basic science.

You can figure all the years since 9/11 are among the hottest twenty recorded and mull the fact that the remaining three were during the 90s.

Or, like Trump, you can figure it’s a hoax.

In twenty-five or fifty years your children and grandchildren may rue the day President Donald J. Trump took the oath of office.

***

P. S. My right-wing friends keep telling me about the NASA study showing Antarctic ice increased by 82 billion tons.

In other words: if a story fits their preconceived notions, they believe the scientists at NASA.

So see what the scientists actually say. Go to the NASA website and read everything they post. You will start to sweat a little (pun intended) if you care about the future of our planet.

Also find the study done by European scientists, using satellite images, that indicates Greenland lost ONE TRILLION tons of ice in just four years.

By chance, I just heard a 99-year-old World War II veteran speak about his experiences (he was shot down and a German prisoner for two years). At one point, he and his crew did flight training in Greenland. 

He says if you look at pictures he has from Greenland in 1943 and compare with pictures of the same locations today, it takes your breath away.

Trump and the Polls: It's Not Over until the Fat Lady Sings!

This is an updated version of what I first published on October 17.

(Trump’s chances of winning have improved since then.)

These are tough days and nights for Donald J. Trump. Polls indicate his chances of winning the presidency are fading fast. His only consolation and the only consolation of his fans seems to be “knowledge” that the polls are rigged.

(By contrast: the days since the FBI announced it had more Clinton emails, by way of Anthony Weiner of all people, were days of lost sleep and heavy drinking for those of us who can’t stomach Trump; we are happier this morning, however, now that James Comey has basically said: “Never mind! Nothing new here folks. False alarm.”)

If that isn’t enough, Trump and his fans believe Democrats are going to turn out millions of the deceased to cast ballots from the Great Beyond. The election will apparently resemble a bad version of The Walking Dead.

Trump should be winning, as all his supporters know, because Trump says he should and Trump ran a perfect campaign. His fans know he would get 106% of the popular vote, if the media didn’t hate their man. They know he won all six debates, including one involving Abraham Lincoln. Trump has polls (not rigged!) proving he did. And all Republicans jumping ship or refusing to board from the start are part of a nefarious conspiracy.

(Sarah Palin called them rats!)

Four of the last five men to run for president on the GOP ticket say they don’t support Trump. That includes George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney. They are all terrible people.

Paul Ryan is a scumbag too.

Trump would win all fifty-two states if it weren’t for these traitors.

(Meanwhile, the VP candidate on the Libertarian ticket has essentially called on supporters to vote for...Hillary Clinton. Go figure! He says a Trump presidency would introduce a world much like George Orwell feared in 1984.)

Considering all the bitter Trump tears, perhaps we might look at a few miscellaneous facts. The same polls Mr. Trump insists are rigged today once showed, during the GOP primaries, that he was always ahead.

Remember those glory days? Remember how Trump always bragged about his big, giant poll numbers?

When did the fix come in? Consider a few trends that bode well for Hillary Clinton. For some reason, Hispanic voters (not illegal immigrants—but living, breathing citizens who can and will cast ballots) don’t like Mr. Trump. In Arizona, on September 13, these voters favored Clinton by 68% to 18%.

In Florida the numbers were 53-29%.

(A poll four days ago, on November 3, has Clinton now leading with Florida Hispanics by a 60-30% margin.)

Then again, these numbers were reported by an actual newspaper—the Washington Post—part of a conspiracy to throw the election to Hillary Clinton. Hispanic voters really loved Trump—because Trump claimed they did. (Hispanic voters also went for President Obama in 2012 and did so in even greater numbers.)

Then, there’s more rigging—this time by Pew Research—to show that voters with a college degree or higher favor Clinton over Trump by 53-29%. (Obama won the same group, but narrowly, four years ago.)

Let’s look at more rigging! Fox News—Trump’s safe spot when he needs to cry on Sean Hannity’s shoulder—admitted Trump was unpopular with African Americans. In August Clinton had 85% support among this demographic. Gary Johnson polled 7%.

Trump had 1%.

Again, the rigging has been “clear” for years. John Kerry, who lost in 2004, won 88% of the African-American vote. In 2012 President Obama swept Mitt Romney aside with 93% of this vote.

Trump does, however, seem to have the KKK vote locked down.

(Even more locked down than before: now that the official newspaper of the KKK has actually endorsed Donald Trump! I mean: you can’t make this stuff up!)

How about women? John Kerry narrowly won with American women, 51-48% in 2004, but lost by a slightly larger margin among men. Obama won the female demographic 56-44% in 2008 and 53-44% in 2012. (Damn rigged voting numbers!) Maybe the GOP could do better if they started supporting equal pay for women, came up with an actual health care plan to replace Obamacare if they do manage to win, and stopped insisting women who are raped have to carry any pregnancy that results to term. Republicans have been losing with women for years—and the Trump “outreach” plan isn’t helping. 

Bragging about grabbing pussy isn’t exactly a strategy to win.

How rigged are the polls? Apparently, very bigly rigged. Last December 59% of American women had an unfavorable opinion of Trump. By March 2016 that number had ballooned to 73%. You could argue loudly—and Donald Trump does—that all these numbers are rigged; but the same sort of polls consistently report Hillary Clinton’s problems. Clinton is the second most-disliked candidate ever to run for president. Rigged poll after rigged poll has shown her with a negative “favorability” rating. Current results average out to 43% favorable, 52% unfavorable.

You can look it up. 

This proves something—in the confused thinking of Donald Trump and his fans—that he absolutely has to be winning!

Only the same polls show the tangerine-colored bombast to be the most disliked candidate in American history. His negative favorability marks are even worse. Currently, 35% of Americans view him favorably.

His “unfavorable” mark is 61%.

(Today the numbers still favor Secretary Clinton: but not by much. Clinton sits at -14; Trump has a score of -19. So he has come up!)

Consider the sheer stupidity of this Trumpian position. Polling data from Arizona indicates he holds a narrow 1 point lead over Clinton, as of today. Similar polls showed Mitt Romney would win the state easily four years ago—and he did, 54-44%. The polls that show Trump narrowly leading today show John McCain (not a hero!!!!) up 16 points on his Democratic challenger. The numbers in Ohio are similar, indicating how poorly the polls are rigged by Democrats and the media and left-wing body snatchers.

The most recent poll of Ohioans shows Trump up 1 point, 42-41%. But the trend of the five most recent polls shows Clinton up 1.6.

Senator Rob Portman, a Republican running in the same battleground, is winning with ease. If the election were today, Portman would clobber his opponent, Ted Strickland, by 16 actual mathematical points.

(Today, Trump leads in Ohio by 3.5 points; Portman now leads by 18. In other words, you have the same basic result. And, as a Democrat, let me say to the GOP, “Thanks for not running Governor John Kasich this year.”)

In Florida, “Little Marco” is polling ahead of his opponent. Rubio is up 5. Where Trump is involved, polls go back to being rigged, and he’s down 4.

(Now: Rubio up 3.7; Trump down 0.8.)

The “rigging” is even worse if we turn to FiveThirtyEight, the most highly respected polling website. Here Nate Silver has Trump trailing nationally by 6.8 points. Silver called all fifty states correctly in 2012, whereas the talking heads at Fox News got the election all wrong.

Even more ominously,  for Trump fans—who apparently hate percentages as much as they hate taxes (not that Trump pays), Kenyan Obama and Crooked Hillary—Silver believes polls show Clinton ahead in every one of ten main battleground states.

Rigged polls?

As recently as July 30, Silver had Trump slightly ahead (briefly) and hanging close as late as September 26, the day of the first presidential debate, the day Trump turned in his “winning” performance. (This was followed up by Trump spending a week focusing on how fat a former Miss America was.) Trump never admitted he lost the first debate or lost the second. And if he said in this third debate on Wednesday that he planned to torture critics if elected, send political opponents to military trials in Guantanamo, have patriotic supporters beat up any protesters and bragged that he could get away with grabbing Rudy Giuliani’s wife’s crotch…well…loyal fans would still love him.

The problem, however, for Trump fans is that there aren’t enough of them to form a majority in three weeks.

It’s not impossible that Trump can win—because math is math—and it’s never over until the fat lady sings (probably an unfortunate analogy, considering Mr. Trump’s penchant for insulting American women). That doesn’t mean it isn’t highly unlikely. 

If you don’t believe me, check the betting line in Las Vegas today. Odds makers say, 6-1, Hillary comes out ahead.

(Today, Silver gives Trump a much better chance to win; and if you like Trump, I fear you may have real reason to hope. I mean you have reason to hope. I fear he might win. Anyway, as of right now, 10:45 a.m., the day before the election, Silver gives your side a 33.9% chance to win, almost triple what he had three weeks ago. In fact, he believes, when he looks at the polls, that Trump will win both North Carolina and Florida.

And again: Silver called every state in 2012 right.)

We will find out tomorrow if the pollsters are right.

***

P. S. Elections are controlled almost entirely at the state level. Polling places, early voting times and dates, absentee ballot notifications, even whether or not felons can vote (in Ohio they can) are set by the states. In the following battleground states, Republicans would have to do the rigging since they control the government: Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.

And did anyone notice that when Democrats were “stealing” the last two presidential elections, and now plan to steal a third, they proved unable to steal off-year elections in 2010 and 2014 when the GOP took control of both houses of Congress?

If Donald Trump loses this election—and, like Las Vegas bookies, I’m betting he will—he’s going to have no one to blame but himself.

(The betting line today is still 4-1 for Hillary Clinton.)

The Democrats ran a flawed candidate and the Republicans had an excellent shot all along to win. Then Trump started shooting himself in the foot—and the ass—and last and certainly not least, right in the nuts.