On the way to the office today I was blasted by Bloomberg from so many angles and reporters about Trumps "I will keep you in suspense".

A little context to remember is that during the Republican primary debate, all of Trump's opponents solemnly raised their right arm to pledge to support the Republican nominee, whoever it might be. Trump was the lone holdout, and he took heat for it.

Then more than half of them reneged on their pledges, including Jeb! Bush and St. John Kasich.

The truth is that if any candidate seriously suspected fraud, or a miscount, or whatever, they would field an army of litigatin' lawyers, as did Al Gore. Trump's the only one honest enough to acknowledge that.

Rudolf Hauser writes: 

You may recall that Nixon did not do that in 1960 despite the likelihood that the Chicago vote was rigged and that winning Illinois would have given him the presidency. He did not want to put the nation through such a crisis.

Stefan Jovanovich writes: 

It is a nice story, which Nixon did his best to promote; but the numbers do not support RH's assertion. Nixon only got 219 votes; adding Illinois and its 27 would have left him 24 short. Subtracting those votes from Kennedy's total of 303 would have left him with 276, 6 more than he needed. What few people mention about the election is that it was the last time a 3rd candidate won electoral votes. Harry Byrd won 15.





Speak your mind

2 Comments so far

  1. FTR on October 20, 2016 11:53 pm

    I believe Texas results were questionable as well - not surprising, considering the vice president. That would have been sufficient electoral college votes.

  2. FTR on October 21, 2016 12:04 am

    I should add: voter fraud is hard to detect after the fact. It’s likely Nixon conceded not because of moral fiber but because there was no path to proving fraud. Both Texas and Chicago results showed clear manipulation from a commonsense perspective, but how exactly is one going to get a court to agree?


Resources & Links