You
may not like it. As an environmentalist,
I CERTAINLY do not like it, but it is an irrefutable fact that Donald J. Trump
is our duly-elected U.S. President, and attempts by some on the Left (even two
years later- I’m talking to you, Michael Moore) to delegitimize this by
pointing out that Trump lost the popular vote are ultimately found wanting.
The
Electoral College is delineated in Article 2, Section 1 and in the 12th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Donald Trump, by the only legal barometer
both major parties were aware of prior to Election Day, earned 304 electoral
votes versus the 227 won by Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton to win the
presidency. There are arguments for and
against the Electoral College which I do not wish to rehash here. Instead, I’d like to stress that one cannot
repudiate a victory reached under the lawful rules both sides were playing
under initially by pointing out that a different result could have been
achieved using a different barometer.
To
demonstrate this, a Reddit user cited (in the Reddit user’s words) “a great
analogy” from Rush Limbaugh’s November 14, 2016 show (a segment I heard live,
by the way) that, predictably, is simple enough for his core audience to grasp
but not subtle enough to truly drive the point home. Rush recalled the classic 1960 baseball World
Series when the heavily-favored New York Yankees (Mantle, Berra, Ford, Maris,
Richardson, Howard, et al) were beaten by the Pittsburgh Pirates in seven
games, despite outscoring the National League representatives 55-27 in the
seven games. Rush’s simple point is to
say, hey, the ground rule to determine the World Series winner is the first
team to win four games in a best-of-seven series and, if we change the rule
post-Series to say, na’ah, let’s declare the Bronx Bombers (Hillary) the Series
winner because they scored more runs in the Series than the Pirates
(Trump). A simple analogy, yes, but not “great”
because strategy (What do I need to do to get to 270 electoral votes?) is
ignored.
A
better, deeper (for me) analogy would be to compare the 2016 Election to one
single baseball game. Current official baseball
rules dictate the winner of a game to be the team that scores the most
runs. Usually, but not always, the
baseball team (or presidential candidate) who gets the most hits (votes) wins
the game (the election). However, as
five U.S. Presidential elections and countless baseball games show, the
candidate (team) who gets the most votes (hits) does not always win the
election (game). Just as there is
strategy involved in earning the most electoral votes (what are the swing
states, and which are in play for us?
How do I allocate my time and resources?
What message do I craft to appeal to those states?) beyond winning the
popular vote, there’s strategy to winning a baseball game beyond getting the
most hits. In some situations, laying
down a sacrifice bunt or grounding out to the right side of the infield to
advance a baserunner into better scoring position makes strategic sense,
although you are giving up an out (in other words, a chance to get a hit). Trying to hit a sacrifice fly to score a
baserunner from third, although again giving up an opportunity for a hit, makes
strategic sense. Ordering a stolen base
attempt to move a runner into scoring position is another strategy that,
depending on circumstances, might make sense even though the subsequent opening
of a base may lead to an intentional walk to the next hitter, thus “taking the
bat out of their hands,” or the runner may even get thrown out, which means
your team has one less opportunity to get a hit. In these examples, a team is implementing
strategies (and I can think of multiple others that would also apply to this
analogy) to attempt to win in ways other than focusing on getting hits alone
because they realize that hits alone do not ensure victory, just like getting
the most popular votes ensures nothing. It
would be absurd for a team that wins 4 runs to 3 to have the result overturned
because they were outhit 8-6.
So,
anti-Trumpers: please stop alluding to
the popular vote! Antiquated or not, the
Electoral College determines our U.S. President and will continue to do so in
perpetuity. So, learn the lessons of the
bitter 2016 defeat (which, if my Twitter feed is any indication, pundits on the
Left have not yet fully grasped), draw the necessary conclusions as to why the
Rust Belt states who decided the election favored the message of a scion whose
businesses filed bankruptcy on multiple occasions over the message (or lack
thereof) of the more progressive party, cease with the stupid “Drumpf” stuff,
and win an election.
