How loathsome is Hillary Clinton?
So loathsome that in than annals of American history, Richard Nixon has shown more class and greater concern for the integrity of elections than Mrs. Clinton has so far demonstrated.
In the famous election of 1960, Nixon lost Illinois by a mere 8,858 votes out of 4.75 million cast. The margin of victory was 2/10ths of a percent. Further, there was evidence to believe the “Daley Machine” in Chicago had created the margin for Kennedy, based on Republican undercounts in down ballot races that should have gone for Nixon. In Texas, though Nixon trailed by 47,000 votes, ballot investigations after the election indicated that as many as 200,000 votes for Nixon has been invalidated through partisan counting procedures. Nixon also lost New Mexico and Missouri by less than a point, opening up other states for review.
But as a matter of political practicality, Nixon knew that even if he could overturn the results in Illinois, there was no path to victory without also winning Texas – Lyndon Johnson’s home state, which was wired tight.
Nixon conceded to fight another day.
Which brings us to Hillary Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton’s lack of grace began on Election night, when she privately conceded the presidency, but refused to address her supporters – and the nation – publicly. The Democrat nominee, who spent the race talking about gender equality, retreated to the worst kind gender stereotyping, with aides pleading that she was far too upset and emotional to be seen in public. As a result, it was the first time in modern American history that the losing candidate spoke after the winner whom she had conceded to. Trump showed class and graciousness in allowing it. He never got the credit for it.
Since Election night, Mrs. Clinton has been silent as professional protestors have conducted nationwide rallies which have injured police and citizens alike, and have caused significant property damage. A true leader would denounce violence and urge protestors to focus their constructive energies on reconciliation, but we only get crickets from Chappaqua.
Now comes word that Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for president, who received one percent of the vote nationwide, has raised funds to force a recount in Wisconsin, and is looking to do the same in Pennsylvania and Michigan. This serves no useful purpose for Ms. Stein, personally, who earned one percent or less in the three states. Indeed, what is ironic about Ms. Stein’s effort now, is that her vote total in MI and WI would have given Mrs. Clinton victory, had Ms. Stein not been in the race.
The Green Party nominee talks up this exercise as a tool to ensure election “integrity,” but there is no tangible evidence of wrongdoing. No less a source than the Obama administration made the following statement, “We stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people. The federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyber activity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on election day.”
No, the only practical outcome of Ms. Stein’s effort would be to create enough uncertainty to place a staggering,combined total of 104,000 votes in doubt, so that Mrs. Clinton could theoretically overturn the results in WI, MI and PA to change the Electoral College vote, which meets to vote on December 19th – the final, binding election tally. That result is then presented to the President of the Senate on January 6th, to certify the results for the nation.
Failing that, depending on the time that recounts take, Ms. Stein might force WI, MI and PA to forgo participation in the Electoral College voting (this depends on technical rules unique to each state) which would prevent Trump from winning, bringing the 12th Amendment into effect. In the House, each state delegation would have one vote, and would choose among the three top candidates. Trump would win easily, given the lopsided advantage that the GOP holds. The Senate chooses the VP on a simply party line vote, and as the GOP has a 52 seat majority, Pence would win. This would be an exercise in futility, but it could serve to undermine Trump’s legitimacy by denying him an initial Electoral College majority.
This is not about election integrity. This is about overthrowing an election result by undermining an election result.
If Mrs. Clinton were a true national leader, she would speak out forcefully against this. She would ask Ms. Stein to refrain from funding recounts that exacerbate stress fractures in our body politic and further dissolve American confidence in our election systems, and focus instead on building a new opposition party to contest ideas with the incoming Trump administration.
But no.
Instead, Mrs. Clinton has, astonishingly, joined the Stein recount effort. Clinton officials are busy beating down stories that Team Hillary is doing anything more than observing an effort undertaken by another candidate, but the optics and symbolism scream otherwise.
Given the stakes and the ultimate, potential beneficiary of any discrepancy in the recount, it looks like the Clinton’s have used Ms. Stein as a stalking horse to undertake this effort, while keeping their own hands copiously clean. If nothing new is turned up, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Stein wasted time, attention and funds on a fruitless effort. If successful, however, it is Mrs. Clinton who benefits. More will be known when official election reports detail the contributors to Ms. Stein’s recount effort, who has raised an astonishing $4.1 million over several days, where Ms. Stein herself raised only $3 million for her entire presidential bid. Expect to see big name Clinton donors on the list.
In this context, it is worth remembering Mrs. Clinton’s shock and outrage when, during the last presidential debate, Donald Trump reserved the right to exercise his legal options after the results came in before he would concede. This is what Mrs. Clinton said at that time:
“That’s horrifying. That’s not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. And let’s be clear about what he’s saying and what he means. He’s denigrating—he’s talking down our democracy. I for one am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our major two parties would take that kind of position.”
Now, Mrs. Clinton is engaged in exactly the same activity that she found so dangerous to American democracy. Worse, she’s already conceded.
Mrs. Clinton’s actions, which manage to be underhanded and cowardly at the same time, speak to a larger point on the Professional Left; elections are only useful when they win.
The violent protests, the death threats that have been made to electors to the Electoral College who refuse to change their vote to support Mrs. Clinton, the multiple efforts by “experts” to delegitimize the election without actual evidence; these are not actions of concerned citizens exercising free speech rights. They are the actions of extremists seeking to acquire political power by any means necessary.
This is the genuine threat to American democracy, and it does not originate or find fulfillment with Trump voters or Republicans. Mrs. Clinton could have put an end to it and be remembered as a statesman. That she refuses to do so – indeed that she subtly supports the efforts – says volumes about the thinking and intentions of today’s Democrat party.