Boo-boos in media, example #17,643

Somebody went to a lot of trouble creating this poster and putting it up on Facebook on the anniversary of last year's presidential election, but the numbers are just plain wrong:

Actually, the 2016 electoral college vote in the U.S. presidential election was:

Donald Trump 304
Hillary Clinton 227 (not 277)
Others 4

Others? You betcha. Keep reading.

As we all should know by now, the U.S. does not elect a president by popular vote. If it did, Hillary Clinton would be president. Instead, each state chooses a slate of electors who meet later in the 50 state capitals as an Electoral College that actually selects a president and vice-president.

In the Electoral College vote last December 19, for the first time since 1808, multiple faithless electors voted against their pledged qualified presidential candidate. Five Democrats rebelled in Washington and Hawaii, while two Republicans rebelled in Texas. Two Democratic electors, one in Minnesota and one in Colorado, were replaced after voting for Bernie Sanders and John Kasich, respectively. Electors in Maine conducted a second vote after one of its members voted for Sanders; the elector then voted for Clinton. Likewise, for the first time since 1896, multiple faithless electors voted against the pledged qualified vice presidential candidate.

One Clinton elector in Colorado attempted to vote for John Kasich. The single vote was ruled invalid by Colorado state law, the elector was dismissed, and an alternative elector was sworn in who voted for Clinton.

One Clinton elector in Minnesota voted for Bernie Sanders as President and Tulsi Gabbard as vice president; his votes were discarded and he was replaced by an alternate who voted for Clinton.

One Clinton elector in Maine voted for Bernie Sanders; this vote was invalidated as "improper" and the elector subsequently voted for Clinton.

Four Clinton electors in Washington did not vote for Clinton (three votes went to Colin Powell, and one to Faith Spotted Eagle).

One Trump elector in Georgia resigned before the vote rather than vote for Trump and was replaced by an alternate.

Two Trump electors in Texas did not vote for Trump (one vote went to John Kasich, one to Ron Paul); one elector did not vote for Pence and instead voted for Carly Fiorina for Vice-President; a third resigned before the vote rather than vote for Trump and was replaced by an alternate.

One Clinton elector in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders.

Of the faithless votes, Colin Powell and Elizabeth Warren were the only two to receive more than one; Powell received three electoral votes for President and Warren received two for Vice President. Receiving one valid electoral vote each were Sanders, John Kasich, Ron Paul and Faith Spotted Eagle for President, and Carly Fiorina, Susan Collins, Winona LaDuke and Maria Cantwell for Vice President. Sanders is the first Jewish American to receive an electoral vote for President. LaDuke is the first Green Party member to receive an electoral vote, and Paul is the third member of the Libertarian Party to do so, following the party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees each getting one vote in 1972. It is the first election with faithless electors from more than one political party. The seven people to receive electoral votes for president were the most in a single election since 1796, and more than any other election since the enactment of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804.

And now, as radio newscaster Paul Harvey used to say, you know the rest of the story.

Yours for accuracy in media,
rhymeswithplague

Not gold, frankincense, and myrrh, exactly, but it will have to do

If you had told me a month ago, when my BPTFTY (Blog Posting Total For The Year) was 64, that someone or something would light a fire under me (metaphorically speaking) and that one month later I would be composing my 77th post of 2016, I would have told you that you had bats in your belfry, that you had resonance where your brains ought to be, that you were nuttier than a fruitcake, that you were wrong, wrong, wrong, kemosabe.

Yet here I am doing that very thing.

No explanation is sufficient, but in December I have been posting almost every other day. Will wonders never cease?

You may be saying to yourself or even shouting at your computer screen, what difference, at this point, does it make? (1:08)

Your objection is duly noted and is being referred to the Rules Committee for future consideration.

So, anyway, whatever the reason, I have become quite prolific blogwise as we approach the end of another trip around the Sun on planet Earth. Who knew?

Here are three pictures to give you a flavor of what December 2016 hereabouts has been like:

Our Front Door:

Our church during Advent, complete with Chrismon tree and interim pastor:

and last, but most definitely not least,

A North Georgia sunset during the final week of Christmas shopping:

and just think, there are still four days left!

I am not a narcissist, I am merely in love with the sound of my own voice

President Obama's public speeches seem more and more concerned with himself. According to The Daily Caller, President Obama referred to himself 45 times over the course of the speech he delivered Tuesday at the memorial service for the five police officers killed in Dallas last week. An article in The Washington Examiner reveals that in a gun-control speech in January Obama referred to himself 76 times over his 33-minute remarks. Following an October mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon, Obama mentioned himself 28 times in a 12-minute speech. During a visit to New Delhi last January, he referenced himself 118 times in 33 minutes.

[Editor's note. I should like to point out that the elegant variation a pedant or English teacher might detect in the previous paragraph (referred, mentioned, referenced) were part of the Washington Examiner article and are not of my own making. --RWP]

President Obama is not alone, of course, in being the center of his own universe. Everyone is, to some extent. For example, in an emotional final speech today, outgoing U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron said, “I will miss the roar of the crowd. I will miss the barbs of the opposition...I was the future once."

And given the brouhaha in the U.S. recently concerning Hillary Clinton's destruction of classified emails and the FBI's decision not to recommend indicting her, another former player on the world's stage now wishes to revise and extend his remarks:

Did Pulitzer-Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd really write that about Hillary Clinton in The New York Times on Sunday?

The short answer is:

Yes.

She really did.

For those of you who never click on links, let’s just say Ms. Dowd was less than kind.

Some of my readers across-the-pond (you know who you are) may have conniption fits at the perceived meanness of Ms. Dowd. They may even be stricken with the collywobbles.

It simply cannot be helped.

As the young folk say nowadays, it is what it is.

There was one statement near the end of Ms. Dowd’s column with which I emphatically disagree, and it didn’t have anything to do with Hillary Clinton:

Ms. Dowd said, “Whatever else you say about [President Obama], he has no shadows.”

Au contraire, Maureen, au contraire. He has been keeping millions of people in the dark for several years.

In spite of that being the case, a happy St. Patrick’s day to one and all!

Why couldn’t Hillary Clinton just tell the truth and say, “My dog ate my emails”?

I’ll tell you why. Because even if the dog actually did eat her home- work emails, we wouldn’t believe her.

Transparent? The woman wouldn’t know transparent if it walked up to her and slapped her in the face.

She seems a nice enough person to the casual observer. I’ll give her that. But that is also the problem. She wants us all to remain casual observers and just believe whatever she says. Who are we to question her?

As columnist Matt Bai points out in this article today on Yahoo, it’s no longer the 1980s or 1990s. The world has changed. Whether the change is for the better, you can discuss amongst yourselves. But changed it certainly has. (Sorry, I lapsed into Yoda-speak there for a minute.)

Jackie Kennedy smoked, but who knew? She never did it in public, so the game was to make us think she never did it at all. It was whispered about Mamie Eisenhower that she drank a lot. Betty Ford came right out and admitted it. Hillary Clinton’s feet of clay may well be that she is known to shout and scream and drop F-bombs all over the place in private. Then again, at this point, what difference does it make?

The world never stops changing.

Hillary Clinton continues to stumble over her own “master plan” -- or so it seems to all of us not-so-casual observers. She never seems genuine. She always gives the impression that she has examined carefully every possible response and picked the one that will deceive convince the greatest number of people voters.

Since I just violated two of my own rules (Never say never; always avoid always) , it must be time to stop.

Hillary Clinton, a woman with many admirers and many detractors, may well wind up becoming America’s First Female President. Only time will tell.

Fasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.

Maybe the world hasn’t changed that much after all.

So I said to her, “Mamie,” I said,...

In the photo above, which is in the public domain, are six First Ladies of the United States at the same table. From left to right, they are Nancy Reagan, Lady Bird Johnson, Hillary Clinton, Rosalynn Carter, Betty Ford, and Barbara Bush. The photo was taken on May 11, 1994, at an event called the National Garden Gala, A Tribute to America’s First Ladies.

What I would like you to do is contribute what you think different ones of them might be thinking or saying based on their positions, posture, and facial expressions.

For example, Nancy Reagan might be thinking, “I could use a Margarita,” Rosalynn Carter might be thinking, “What a hideous blouse,” and Lady Bird Johnson might be thinking, “Hasn't she ever heard of mouthwash?”

Remember that this is a G-rated blog.

This should be good!