Preview: Lester Holt's debate questions for Clinton and Trump

The first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump takes place tonight at 9 p.m. ET at Hofstra University on Long Island and will run for 90 minutes, without commercial interruption. Around 100 million people are expected to tune in -- Super Bowl numbers.

Per the Commission on Presidential Debates, which sponsors the presidential debates:

The debate will be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on major topics to be selected by the moderator and announced at least one week before the debate. 

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. Candidates will then have an opportunity to respond to each other. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a deeper discussion of the topic.

          *****

Lester Holt, moderator of the first 2016 presidential debate, has selected the topics for that debate. Subject to possible changes because of news developments, the topics for the September 26 debate are as follows, not necessarily to be brought up in this order: 

America's Direction 

Achieving Prosperity 

Securing America 

What specifically will Lester Holt, the anchor of NBC Nightly News (and a registered Republican), ask the candidates? Here's a preview of some of the questions. [NB: Questions are not listed in the order they may appear.]

To Secretary Clinton: Do you feel America is headed in the right direction?

To Donald Trump: Can I have one of your "Make America Great" hats?

To Secretary Clinton: How would you handle illegal immigration?

To Donald Trump: What's your favorite color?

To Secretary Clinton: What specifically would you do to help improve the economy, to help those people who have lost jobs or are earning less than they did eight years ago?

To Donald Trump: How great is your plan to help America -- great, or really great?

To Secretary Clinton: How would you solve the situation in the Middle East and stop terrorism?

To Donald Trump: Remind us, what did Vladimir Putin say about you, that you were a genius?

To Secretary Clinton: Doesn't your role in Benghazi disqualify you from being President?

To Donald Trump: Running the Miss Universe pageant must have given you a lot of insight into international relations. Can you share some of the lessons you have learned?

To Secretary Clinton: Why did you use a private email server -- and why do you continue to refuse to share those speeches you gave to Goldman Sachs?

To Donald Trump: Do you feel the American people really need to see your tax returns?

To Secretary Clinton: What concerns you most about Donald Trump?

To Donald Trump: What concerns you most about Crooked Hillary; emails, Benghazi, or her terminal illness?

Feel free to suggest other questions via the Comments (which are also moderated, albeit not by Lester Holt).

Dump the Trump: Tell the Donald "You're fired!"

It's time to play... Dump the Trump! The blog post where you click on this link to sign an online petition to Urge Macy's to Dump Donald Trump.

As many of you know, Macy's department stores sell Donald Trump clothing and fragrances. (What does Birther smell like anyway?) Macy's also prides itself on social responsibility:

There is no shortage of talk about the obligation of public companies to be socially responsible to the people and communities where they do business. At Macy’s, Inc., we hold those same beliefs – along with a belief that actions speak louder than words when it comes to helping tackle some of the toughest problems facing us today.

And the company has a Vendor & Supplier Code of Conduct that clearly states it will not tolerate human trafficking and child labor, though maybe Macy's should extend that statement to include trafficking in lies and childish behavior.

The bigger point: Donald Trump is bad for business -- that is, Macy's business. So unless Macy's wants to increase its appeal to grumpy, old, racist white guys, the company would be wise to tell the Donald to peddle his made-in-China label elsewhere.

And wouldn't it be great if NBC, which airs his show, The Apprentice, told the Donald "You're fired!" too? Of course that will never happen -- unless the show's ratings go lower than Congress's. Indeed, by the time the new All-Star Celebrity Apprentice airs March 3, people may not remember or care about all of the crazy, hateful, outrageous, and borderline treasonous things Donald Trump said and did during the 2012 Presidential Race. And more's the pity.

Fact checking Donald Trump's penis

Donald Trump is very sensitive about the size of his... fingers.

Of course, we all know why Mr. Trump is touchy about the length of his fingers. It's because, as researchers in Korea found, there is a correlation between the length of a man's fingers and the length of his penis.

So when, 25 years ago, Graydon Carter, then the editor of Spy Magazine, referred to the Donald as a "short-fingered vulgarian," the Orange One took it as personal assault to his manhood. And he has spent the last 25 years insisting that his appendages are, in fact, not small but big. Really big. Make that really really big. We're talking yuge.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about Donald Trump's "fingers." (Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about, and from, Donald Trump period.) So I have a proposal: Have one (or more) of the fact checking organizations, say PolitiFact.com or FactCheck.org, get out their measuring tapes and actually measure the length of Trump's various appendages to see if, in fact, they are shorter than average, average, or bigger than average. Heck, measure all the Republican dicks while they're at it, to see who is who's got the biggest one.

Then we can see who is telling the truth.

(As reported in Men's Health, "the average flaccid penis length—from the base to the opening on the tip—[is] 3.6 inches and the circumference, measured around the base or mid-shaft, [is] 3.7 inches." The length of the average erect penis: 5.2 inches.)

You're welcome, America.

THIS JUST IN: From friend of the blog Fact Lovin' Liberal, "Hillary weighs in":

On the NBA, Donald Sterling, and the right to hate

So this week we were again reminded that racism is alive and well in the good ole United States. Is anyone really surprised?

Sure we feign -- or legitimately feel -- moral outrage, or disgust, at the likes of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who thinks black/African-American people would be better off as slaves, and L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling, who doesn't like the idea of his alleged girlfriend, his African-American-Mexican girlfriend, going to basketball games with black guys.

And we should feel outrage, or at least disgust. Hate speech of any kind is abhorrent.

But while there are laws about discrimination in the work place, it is not illegal to say racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic things in private or in the privacy of your home -- though it is a crime in the State of California "to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call,without the consent of all parties to the conversation."*

To quote billionaire entrepreneur and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban:

I think you’ve got to be very, very careful when you start making blanket statements about what people say and think, as opposed to what they do. It’s a very, very slippery slope.

...[t]here’s no excuse for his [Donald Sterling's] positions. There’s no excuse for what he said. There’s no excuse for anybody to support racism. There’s no place for it in our league, but there’s a very, very, very slippery slope.

If it’s about racism and we’re ready to kick people out of the league... then what about homophobia? What about somebody who doesn’t like a particular religion. What about somebody who’s anti-semitic? What about a xenophobe?

In this country, people are allowed to be morons.

But... if we're taking something somebody said in their home and we're trying to turn it into something that leads to you being forced to divest property in any way, shape or form, that's not the United States of America. I don't want to be part of that.

Cuban also tweeted that he "100% agreed" with NBA Commissioner Adam Silver's decision to ban Donald Sterling for life from associating with the Clippers organization or the NBA and fine him $2.5 million, the maximum fine allowed under the NBA's constitution.

Watching ESPN's live coverage of the Silver/NBA presser and listening to the immediate post-conference media coverage, it seems that many people (i.e., basketball players, coaches, owners, and reporters) were happy with the verdict (though wondered why the NBA hadn't done anything sooner).

Does that mean that the NBA has eradicated racism (and hopefully other forms of hate speech) from basketball? Hardly. But it does send a powerful message, at least to basketball team owners. (Though I worry that the message could be interpreted as, make sure no one records you!)

Now if only the FCC -- or Clear Channel Communications -- would ban Rush Limbaugh from broadcasting and fine him millions of dollars. Ditto all the hate spewers on Fox News. But as any dittohead will tell you, that would be un-American.

UPDATED 4/30/14: If you haven't read Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's great opinion piece re Donald Sterling and racism on Time.com, go read it now.

*Though I doubt V. Stiviano will be arrested.

May I interest you in a good book?

Read many good books the last few months (and a few not-so-good books, many of which I could not finish).

Following are my favorites, divided into Fiction and Non-Fiction.

As per usual, I've linked each book title to its Amazon page, where you can read a more in-depth description and see other readers' reviews -- and buy the book, if you so choose.

I also welcome your suggestions. So if you've read a good book recently, please leave a comment with the name and title and a brief description.  

Fabulous Fiction 

The Swinger by Michael Bamberger and Alan Shipnuck. Written by two senior writers for Sports Illustrated, who clearly know golf (and Tiger Woods), the book is basically a fictionalized -- and highly entertaining -- account of golfer Tiger Woods' fall from grace. Though the Tiger Woods character in the book, Herbert "Tree" X. Tremont, is far more sympathetic. And while I enjoy watching golf, and was a big Tiger fan back in the day, you don't need to be a golfer or a Tiger hater (or lover) or a guy to enjoy this book, though it helps.

The Time in Between by Maria Dueñas. I cannot imagine what it must have been like to live through the Spanish Civil War or the Second World War in Spain, or Morocco, but thanks to Maria Dueñas' beautiful prose, I almost can -- in a good way. Told from the point of view of a young dressmaker, whose world is turned upside down several times by misfortune and war, The Time in Between is a story of fortitude, friendship, and fashion. It is also one of my new favorite books. Couldn't put it down.

Juliet by Anne Fortier. Reading this book made me want to book a flight to Siena, Italy, pronto. A tale of two sisters, the search for the real Romeo and Juliet, intrigue, hidden treasure, romance, and Italy! What more do you people ("people" as in women) want from a book? The perfect beach or hammock or vacation read.

The Twelfth Enchantment by David Liss. Although set in Regency England, and populated with romantic characters (such as Lord Byron), The Twelfth Enchantment is not a romance novel (and not just because there is not a bare-chested duke nor a buxom lass on the cover). Rather, it is a work of historical fiction -- with an occult/fantasy twist -- concerning the Industrial Revolution and the Luddites... and witches (or cunning folk) and fairies and spirits. If you enjoy historical fiction, as well as fantasy books, I highly recommend The Twelfth Enchantment.

The Very Picture of You by Isabel Wolff. As a fan of Wolff's previous novel, A Vintage Affair, I looked forward to reading The Very Picture of You -- and it did not disappoint. This time the main character is a portraitist in her mid-30s, who, as she learns about her subjects' lives learns things about herself and her family. Anglophiles, lovers of chick lit, and those with an artistic soul should enjoy this book (whose target audience is women in the their 30s and 40s), which is an easy read.

Noteworthy Non-Fiction

Gilded: How Newport Became America’s Richest Resort by Deborah Davis. I love a good,descriptive subtitle,don't you? After reading Davis's book, Strapless (a fabulous biography of John Singer Sargent and Madame X), I was eager to see what else she had written, and picked up Gilded. Told in vignettes, Gilded neatly captures the Gilded Age history and characters of Newport, Rhode Island, though it also includes Newport tales from more recent times (including that of Sunny and Claus von Bulow). Filled with wonderful anecdotes and pictures, Gilded inspired me and a friend (who also read book) to drive to Newport and visit some of the "cottages" mentioned.

The Hare with the Amber Eyes by Edmund de Waal. Part art history, part memoir, The Hare with the Amber Eyes is one man's poignant search for the family history behind a set of Japanese netsuke (wood and ivory carvings) he inherited, which takes him to Paris and Vienna and Odessa. As a Jew, I was heartsick reading about the treatment of the Jews, even prominent ones, such as the author's great-grandparents and their extended family, in the early through mid-1900s in Europe, particularly in France and Austria, where much of the book takes place. A must read for lovers of art history, memoirs, and/or Europe before and during the Second World War.

(An interesting aside: Not long ago I read The Luncheon of the Boating Party, about Renoir's famous picture of the same name, which I loved. And one of the featured characters was an art connoisseur by the name of Charles Ephrussi, who happens to be Edmund de Waal's relative and is featured prominently, in a much different way, in The Hare with the Amber Eyes.)

Rogues’ Gallery: The Secret Story of the Lust, Lies, Greed, and Betrayals That Made the Metropolitan Museum of Art by Michael Gross. Hooray for subtitles! They make my job so much easier. Love the Met? Like a fun, gossipy read? Check out Rogues' Gallery. While I felt like I was slogging through the first half (or third) of the book, things definitely pick up when Gross gets to the mid-20th Century goings on at the venerable museum. Filled with interesting personalities and behind-the-scenes intrigue at one of the world's great museums, Rogues' Gallery is a must read for art history majors, New Yorkers, people who worked or volunteered at the Met (like me!), and anyone who ever wanted to know what it is like to attend one of the Costume Institute shindigs.

Marilyn Monroe: The Biography by Donald Spoto. I picked up Spoto's biography of Marilyn Monroe because I am huge fan of Smash on NBC and didn't really know that much about the Blonde Bombshell, though I've seen most of her movies (several times). And although it's depressing as Hell, Marilyn Monroe: The Biography is a very well researched biography, albeit too focused on Marilyn's psychiatric care and death for my taste, that exposes the many myths surrounding Monroe's life, romances, and death. Fascinating.

Desert Queen: The Extraordinary Life of Gertrude Bell: Adventurer, Adviser to Kings, Ally of Lawrence of Arabia by Janet Wallach. Before stumbling upon this book at my local library, I had no idea who Gertrude Bell was or anything about the history or formation of Iraq. Boy, was this book an eye opener. The incredible story of an incredible woman, Desert Queen shows how (and why) things went so terribly wrong in the Middle East -- then and now -- and why any Western attempts to "fix things" or bring democracy to that region will most likely fail. To repeat myself, fascinating.

Note: To see previous Book Nook posts, click on the "Book Nook" label, below, or click on the "Book Recommendations" link in the right-hand column.

So much for the Trump White House Hotel and Casino

A part of me (I think it's my hair) is disappointed that Donald Trump will not be entering the 2012 Presidential Race. Think of all the blog posts!

Fortunately, the Donald's decision not to run for President in 2012 does not mean the end of his involvement in the 2012 Presidential Race. Far from it.

Per Trump, "I will continue to voice my opinions loudly and help to shape our politician's thoughts."

Lucky President Barack Obama -- and us!

And why should anyone pay any attention to he of the perpetually windblown hair?

"My ability to bring important economic and foreign policy issues to the forefront of the national dialogue is perhaps my greatest asset and one of the most valuable services I can provide to this country," quoth the Donald.

And here I thought his most valuable asset and service was bringing viewers Celebrity Apprentice.

Want to read more about Trump's decision not to run for President? You can read the full text of his I'm-not-running-for-President-even-though-if-I-did-I-would-totally-win speech here. (And for those of you didn't see or want to relive President Obama's roasting of Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, click here.)

So question: What do you think of the Donald's decision not to run for President in 2012? Do you think the whole thing was a publicity stunt? Would you have voted for him if he had decided to run? Leave me a Comment.

[Slightly off topic: I actually interviewed Donald Trump YEARS ago, over the phone, and met him, and each time he was very courteous and polite, albeit full of hot air. To me he didn't seem like an evil guy, just a consummate promoter and salesmen, whose product was himself.]

Howard Beale for President

The U.S. Presidential Election of 2016 will no doubt go down in history as one of the strangest.

Who would have thought a few years ago (or even a few months ago) that the front runners would be an angry old billionaire from Queens (Donald Trump) and an angry old Democratic Socialist from Brooklyn (Bernard "Bernie" Sanders)?

Somewhere in heaven, Paddy Chayefsky must be laughing.

Who is Paddy Chayefsky and why would he be chuckling over the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election? Chayefsky, an Academy Award-winning screenwriter and novelist from the Bronx (yet another New Yorker who knew how to channel anger), wrote the screenplay for the movie Network (which won him one of his Oscars) and created the character  Howard Beale, a disgruntled newsman who was "mad as hell" and wasn't "going to take this anymore!"



For those who have seen Network, or know the famous "Mad as Hell" speech, this election must seem like life imitating art.


Both candidates, Donald Trump on the Republican side, and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic one, claim to be angry, or mad as hell, about the way things are or are going in this country.

And they want their supporters to go to their windows (or polling places) and tell the world they are, likewise, mad as hell and aren't going to take "this" (whatever "this" is) anymore. And their supporters are doing it!

Apparently, hope is dead and anger is in this election cycle. And both Trump and Sanders are channeling voter anger to garner votes.

However, while anger may seem like a winning strategy now, just remember what happened to Howard Beale. He was murdered on live TV. Of course, in Donald Trump's case, that probably wouldn't stop people voting for him.

[Speaking of the Donald, if you haven't seen Funny or Die's Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal: The Movie, I highly suggest you watch it this weekend -- and be sure to watch the end credits.]

Final thoughts on the 2016 presidential election

I did not watch the third and final presidential debate of 2016 (though I did check out some of the comments on Twitter while it was going on). I may be a Metsochist, but I'm not a masochist. Besides, why stay up late and put yourself through 90 minutes of mental torture when you can spend just five reading Alexandra Petri's (way more entertaining) recap or wait for the (again more entertaining) Alec Baldwin-Kate McKinnon version of the debate on SNL this weekend, hombre?

Even before going into the third presidential debate, most people's (everyone's) minds were made up -- and pretty much nothing Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton would say was going to change that.* Even Donald Trump refusing to say if he would respect the outcome of the election -- despite the horror expressed by every mainstream news organization at that statement. (And no, the suspense is not killing me.)

(Seriously pundits, you really think people who have no problem supporting a questionably rich guy who brags about not paying his taxes and assaulting women are going to suddenly change their minds about Trump because he would not unequivocally state he would respect election results? Which election have you been following?)

So, I am not writing this to change anyone's mind. (See the asterisk, below.) But I did want to share some thoughts, or observations, about this election.

1. Those surprised by the rise of Donald J. Trump either slept through the last 50 years or were not paying attention to politics. Trump is the product, or by-product, of years of political demagoguery -- the bloated, orange, short-fingered, small-minded embodiment of everything bad and hateful about America.

2. Facts don't matter any more. A lot of people don't even know the difference between facts and opinions. As someone whose first job was as a fact checker -- and was taught in school and as a journalist and editor that the truth and facts were paramount, I find that deeply disturbing. (Oh, and for those who say it's hard to ferret out the facts in this election, no it isn't. Just go to PolitiFact or FactCheck.org.)

3. Civil discourse is dead. It's been dying for years, I know, much like fact checking, but this election may have been the final nail in the coffin.

4. If Donald J. Trump receives more votes than Hillary Clinton, then yes, I will believe the election was rigged.



*For anyone interested in the neuroscience behind why and how people make up their minds and why some (most?) people will never change them once made up, even when facts contradict their beliefs, read Idiot Brain: What Your Head Is Really Up To by Dean Burnett. It is both entertaining and enlightening. Also see "confirmation bias" and "cognitive dissonance," the two reasons I stopped arguing with people about politics (and religion) long ago.

Donald Trump and Pussy Galore

While pretty much everything that spews forth out of Donald Trump's mouth is vile, I just cannot get worked up over his use of the word pussy. Seriously, of all the slang and pejorative terms for a woman's genitalia, aka vagina (rhymes with China), pussy is the one we're having issues with? Seriously?

[Btw, if you didn't see Samantha Bee's "Vagina Monologue" in her segment on the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape last night, you can watch it here. It is must-see TV IMO.]

But getting back to pussies.... You people ever hear of a book, later made into a film by the same name, called Goldfinger, featuring a guy by the name of James Bond? The film, released in 1964, was tremendously popular and some 40-plus years after it was made you can still watch it on TBS and BBC America regularly.

Any of you recall the name of the femme fatale in Goldfinger? Here, let me help you, Pussy Galore. I don't recall it inciting riots, then or now, but I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. (FYI, in the book, Galore was a lesbian.)

Donald Trump was likewise dreaming if he thought that women wanted him to grab them -- by their pussy, or anyplace else -- and kiss them. Though, this scene from the film, as described in Wikipedia, sounds frighteningly Trumpian:

"Bond corners Galore in a barn and forcibly holds her down (while she tries hard to fight him off) and kisses her. The film then shows a massive change in personality where she seems to welcome the earlier assault, putting her arms around Bond. She then secretly turns against Goldfinger."

Maybe the problem with Donald Trump is that he thinks he's James Bond.

While we are on the topic of James Bond and women, who could forget this priceless (totally male chauvinistic) exchange from Diamonds Are Forever?



Ivanka is lucky she wasn't named after her father. Otherwise we might now know her as Short-Fingered Vulgarian or Cheeto Jesus or Clown Face.

NOTE: To anyone reading this who thinks I am in any way condoning Trump's behavior, I am not. There is zero excuse for sexual assault. But many people (see "Trump Supporters") seem to be way more worked up about the use of the word pussy than by Trump's actions, which is wrong.

Democrats don't get it

This post is going to piss off a lot (all?) of my Democrat friends. So be it. But we Democrats need to do a reality check.

Item #1: The electors are not going to not elect Donald Trump. It doesn't matter if that petition got 10 million signatures. Save your op-eds, your pleas, and your sanity. It ain't going to happen. Thirty-seven Republican electors are not going to not elect Trump.

Sure, maybe a couple of them will vote for someone else, another Republican. But as has been proven again and again -- and again -- Republicans always fall in line. And the Republican electors will cast their votes for Trump. And on the slim chance that 37 of them decide to do otherwise, the decision will get thrown to Congress. And guess what? They're not going to make Hillary Clinton -- or Bernie Sanders -- the next President of the United States. But if it makes you feel a wee bit better to sign some petition begging a bunch of Republicans to not vote for the Republican candidate, go ahead.

Item #2: Republicans will fall in line and confirm all of Trump's cabinet -- and Supreme Court -- appointments (or almost all of them). Forget the kvetching and big talk from Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham et al. It's all just bluster. When it comes down to a vote, the Republicans will all fall in line and confirm Trump's cabinet and Supreme Court appointments, no matter how awful they are. Sure, one or two Congressfolk may dissent, but more for show, knowing someone else will cancel out their nay.

Item #3: Democrats in Congress will roll over, or compromise, like they always do. Just the other week there was big talk that the Democrats would let the Republicans flounder after repealing or gutting Obamacare -- that is, they wouldn't sign on to any legislation that offered less than what the Affordable Care Act offered. Yet now -- no surprise -- I am reading and hearing that (some? most?) Democrats will "work with" their Republican brethren, so that only, say, 19.95 million people lose their health insurance, or have to pay a fortune for insurance, instead of 20 million.

Look, I get it. A lot of these Democrats are up for reelection in 2018 and they feel that something is better than nothing. But if Democrats want to take back the Senate and House, they need to stiffen their spines and stand tall, instead of bending over and letting the Republicans give it to them.

Item #4: Bernie Sanders is not going to save us. I grant you that if the contest had been between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, we may very well have been talking about President-elect Bernie Sanders right now. But Hillary Clinton was who Democrats voted for, despite all of the negative press about Hillary, by MILLIONS of votes. And I very much doubt Putin and the Russians had anything to do with that outcome.

Also, it is important to note that while a President Sanders would be much more palatable, at least to a large portion of the population, than President Trump, he wouldn't have gotten anything done. And all of his big campaign promises -- making college free, medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, reforming Wall Street -- which sound great, but would require raising taxes and/or increasing the debt, substantially, would never be approved/get passed by Congress.

You think Congress was obstructionist under President Barack Obama, who looks practically Conservative compared to Bernie? You can bet your bippy Republicans would do their level best to make sure a President Sanders got nothing done -- or worse, would still pass all sorts of harmful legislation or repeal legislation and executive orders passed under Obama, because they probably have the votes to do so.

Item #5: Wishing won't make it so, and ignoring reality, or the news, won't make Trump go away. So where do Democrats go from here? We fight to take back the Senate and House, by supporting and campaigning for Democratic candidates. And we tell representatives in the House and in the Senate not to roll over, by writing and calling them. And we, or our elected officials, file lawsuits against Donald Trump, as these attorneys general plan or may do.

The depressing numbers behind Election 2016

I don't consider myself a numbers person, but I have been fascinated by the numbers behind the 2016 Presidential Election, going back to the primaries. And the numbers behind what is being called the most surprising (and shocking) U.S. presidential election ever are pretty interesting. So I thought I'd share some of them with you.

Here are a bunch from the United States Elections Project:

Here are some other interesting numbers:

Number of Americans registered to vote: 146,311,000 (per Statistics Brain, which has more statistics about the election on its site).

Number of registered voters who actually voted: 133,331,500*

This means nearly 13 million people who could have easily voted did not. And over 85 million who could have voted by registering couldn't be bothered. 

[You want a better world, Millennials? Go register and VOTE IN THE MIDTERMS. No effing excuses.]

Popular vote totals* as of 8:35 a.m. ET on 11/12/16:

Hillary Clinton:  60,467,601**
Donald Trump:   60,072,551
Gary Johnson:      4,123,115
Jill Stein:              1,237,138
Other candidates:    820,695

For those too lazy to do the math, Clinton now leads Trump by nearly 400,00 votes.

[Donald Trump was right. The electoral college is a disaster.]

To see state-by-state popular vote totals, click here.

As I mentioned on Facebook the other day, less than (or just over) 100,000 votes separated Clinton and Trump in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. But the only way the outcome of the election would change is if those votes for Hillary were cast in Arizona and Michigan and either Florida and/or Pennsylvania.

Interestingly, as of November 9, Arizona, which Trump won by less than 100,000 votes, still had over 600,000 ballots to count. And, according to Heavy:

As of November 11, the Secretary of State in Michigan was reporting the following totals:

Trump: 2,277,914
Clinton: 2,264,807
Johnson: 172,726
Stein: 51,420
Castle: 16,125
Soltysik: 2,231

That’s a margin of victory of just 13,107 votes. A margin of under 2,000 votes triggers an automatic recount in Michigan, but candidates can seek a recount even if the margin is larger.

Speaking of razor thin margins, check out this fascinating article from The Washington Post titled "How Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins in swing states," which notes that "Of the more than 120 million votes cast in the 2016 election, 107,000 votes in three states effectively decided the election."

Another excellent numerical read is the New York Times's exit poll stats. As Samantha Bee noted, "it's pretty clear who ruined America: white people." Indeed, 63 percent of white men and 53 percent of white women cast their votes for Trump. (To which I say, WTF ladies?)

And that concludes this lesson on why it's important for those of you unhappy with the results of Election 2016 to register to vote (if you have not done so already) and to actually go out and vote on election day -- and why 2018 will be a very important election.

This has been a public service announcement.

11/13/16 UPDATE: As of 6:07 p.m. ET today, Hillary Clinton's lead over Donald Trump increased to more than 650,000 votes. And when I checked earlier today, votes were still being counted in parts of Michigan and Pennsylvania, both close races that were being called for Trump, and California, which broke heavily for Clinton. But according to various reports I've read, even if Clinton has a million or two million more votes than Trump, because of where those votes were cast, Trump is still going to be President.


*These numbers will go up as votes are still being counted.
**According to many/most predictions, Clinton's popular vote lead will exceed 500,000 -- and some say over 1 million votes.

The only reason the GOP would dump Trump

"The economy, stupid."

Remember when even the whiff of adultery could ruin a man's chances of becoming president or could get him impeached? Ha ha ha. That's so 1990s. (Though I'm guessing if a Democrat was caught screwing around, Republicans would be up in arms.)

So what does it take in 2017 to get impeached, or even censured by Congress? Apparently not racism, inciting violence, ethics violations, profiteering, shady (or illegal) business dealings, conflicts of interest, collusion with a foreign power, bullying, lying, or fraud.

In fact, I would wager that if Donald J. Trump stood in front of Trump Tower -- or anywhere on Fifth Avenue -- and shot someone, I doubt it would make a dent in his popularity, at least among his die-hard supporters. It might even raise it if the person he shot was black or Muslim. He would no doubt claim it was self-defense, and his supporters -- and Fox News -- would believe him and trumpet his innocence, even if it was proved that the attack was unprovoked.

And while Republican Senators and Representatives might initially condemn Trump for shooting someone, as some of them have in the past for his pussy grabbing, support of white supremacy, and other things, I doubt even that would move them to censure or impeach him.

No, the only thing that might possibly cause Republicans in Congress to impeach or remove Trump? If the economy went into a tailspin, meaning the stock market crashed, unemployment crept up, and we faced another recession.

Right now Trump is still enjoying the economic draft or slipstream left from President Obama's time at the wheel, similar to the economic situation George W. Bush inherited when he took office. And we all know how well that turned out.

And that quote at the beginning of this blog post, "The economy, stupid" (typically quoted as "It's the economy, stupid")? That was the rallying cry of the (Bill) Clinton campaign back in 1992, which helped get him elected.

Indeed, more than anything else (except maybe -- maybe) terrorism or the threat of terrorism, the economy is what determines who gets into or stays in office*. And if Donald Trump, the supposedly great businessman, turns out to be bad for business? Then, maybe, just maybe, he will be removed or voted out of office. But I wouldn't bet on it.



*I hear the spouse and many of my non-Republican friends yelling at their computer screens, saying "I disagree! The Russian thing is going to be his undoing!" To which my reply is, only if there is some major bombshell -- that there is indisputable proof that Trump personally colluded with Russians to influence the election -- will that possibly lead to impeachment. That's how crazy and depressing our political situation is now. Which, to quote Donald Trump, is sad.

Hillary + Bernie by the numbers: The facts

As many (if not all) of you regular J-TWO-O readers know, I am fascinated (and appalled) by politics -- and am a stickler for facts. (I majored in Political Science, and Russian, in college, and went on to get a Master's Degree in International Relations. And my first job was as a fact checker at a magazine based in New York City, where I often fact checked Donald Trump.)

I've been pretty quiet about this election because so many others have already voiced my thoughts. And I've been appalled by the uncivil discourse. I've been especially disturbed by some of the rhetoric and vitriol aimed at Hillary Clinton and her supporters by Bernie Sanders and his supporters. I thought that kind of name-calling, bullying, and telling or repeating of lies was limited to the Republican party -- and playgrounds. But I was wrong.

However, I do not want to focus on either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, the people or their campaigns or positions, in this post. I want to talk numbers -- and about the nominating process.

I am in agreement with Charles Blow (and many others) who say our nominating process is broken. The whole delegate system is whack -- and superdelegates and caucuses should go. The latter replaced by primaries.

It is crazy that 10,617 people, the total number of people who voted in the Alaska caucuses, should determine who the Democratic nominee for president is. And less than 24,000 people voted in the Idaho Democratic caucuses. That's just slightly more people than live in my little New England town! And what is considered an "insanely high" turnout in Maine? That would be 46,800 people, in a state with over 267,000 registered Democratic voters.

In Washington State, an estimated 230,000 Democrats came out to caucus, which sounds pretty good -- until you consider that there are over 7 million people living in Washington State and nearly 4 million of those had registered to vote as of January 31, 2016. I searched the Internet, and I couldn't find out the number of registered Democrats in Washington State, but I'm guessing it's over 230,000.

[For those interested in party registration by state, check out this table. As you will see, Washington State is not listed.]

As most people following the Democratic campaigns know, Bernie Sanders's "big wins" (or close calls) have come from these caucus states, where voter turnout tends to be low -- and peer pressure is high. Whereas Hillary Clinton has won more primaries, where far more people vote -- and voting is a private matter. (Those are not opinions. They are facts.) But I decided to dig a little deeper and count up not the number of delegates each Democratic presidential candidate has but how many people actually voted for Bernie and Hillary -- and I was pretty surprised by what I found.

As of today, Monday, April 4, 2016, 6,717,872* people have voted for Bernie Sanders -- and 9,136,072* people have voted for Hillary Clinton. Put another way, to date, over 2.4 million more Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton than for Bernie Sanders.

Granted, there are several big Democratic primary contests left -- most notably New York, Pennsylvania, and California (which doesn't hold it's primary until June 7th). And Bernie Sanders could conceivably garner a lot of votes in those races. But I'm guessing (and hey, I could be wrong) that if the pattern holds, Hillary Clinton will continue to rack up a substantial number of votes -- and delegates -- in those states. And, if she does, the Superdelegates will continue to stick with her, and she will be the nominee.

*NOTE 1: Here's another reason to abandon the caucus system: the winning numbers often  don't represent the number of votes won but the number of state delegates won. I neglected to read the fine print when I first calculated the total number of votes/voters -- and have revised my numbers for Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and Washington upward, to reflect the number of voters, not state convention delegates won.

For example, the actual number of Democrats who voted in Iowa was 171,109 [H/T Friend of the Blog Fact Lovin' Liberal], not 1,406, the number I had originally included, which was the total number of state delegate equivalents -- i.e., the numbers all the news outlets gave. Unfortunately, though, I am unable to find precisely how many of those who caucused in Iowa cast their vote for Bernie and how many voted for Hillary (or, more correctly, their delegates). Similarly, the number of Democrates who caucused in Washington State was estimated at 230,000, though, again, I could not find exact breakdowns, so I based the numbers on the percentage of votes each candidate won.

However, even correcting the state totals, Hillary still leads Bernie by more than 2.4 million votes.

NOTE 2: Please go to this post to see revised numbers, post Wisconsin and with American territories and Americans abroad factored in, and a state-by-state table. And check J-TWO-O after each primary for the latest vote counts.

Sluts, bitches & hos: Women, the last bastion of denigration

As we have learned in the last few weeks, making racist, racially charged, or anti-gay comments or slurs is now a punishable, or fireable, offense. Or at the bare minimum will incur the collective wrath of social media, celebrities, bloggers, Liberals, the main stream press, and, on occasion, even Republicans.

But it is still fine to slur, denigrate, demean, or slut-shame women! 

I know, PHEW! Right, bitches? I mean, we wouldn't want Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly to lose his job or be suspended, right*? And what would life be like without rap music?

And lest you think that guys are the only ones getting away with saying awful, humiliating things about women, just check out all the press around Monica Lewinsky this week.

While society has taken steps to ban or punish bullying in other arenas (at school and online), apparently it is still a-okay to denigrate or humiliate, or "slut shame," a woman for something stupid and naive she did, consensually, with a married man who should have known better, at the age of 22.

And you know who are the worst offenders? Women! WTF? Seriously, WTF, ladies?

Shame on us.

I'm not saying that it's okay for women, of any age, to go around seducing, or trying to seduce, married men. It is not. But find me one college age or slightly older female who hasn't lusted after a married professor, rock star, celebrity or famous person, who wouldn't have jumped at the chance to have "sexual relations" with that man.

Indeed, at Hillary's alma mater back in the 1980s, trying to seduce the (often married) male professors was a sport.

We women can be such hypocrites.

And it's not just the Monica Lewinskys who get the abuse (deservedly or not). Any woman who is deemed too flirtatious, too aggressive, too threatening, or too whatever, especially if she is attractive -- even if she hasn't done anything wrong -- is fair game.

We women can't win. You turn down a guy, you're a bitch (according to the guy). You don't turn him down, you're a slut (according to other women).

By the way, of the 201 slang words for women, the majority are derogatory and have to do with sex (and loose morals), while there are only 72 slang terms for a man, the majority of which are not really pejorative, mate.

And while I applaud society cracking down on racists, bigots, and homophobes, I wish sexism and misogyny, vicious anti-female comments and slurs, were greeted with the same ire and intolerance. (Ditto anti-Semitism, but that's another blog post.)

*For the record, former shock jock Donald Imus was not fired from WFAN back in 2007 because he jokingly referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "hos." It was because Imus called them "nappy-headed hos," i.e., he used a racial slur. (Just Google "Donald Imus firing." Almost all the articles cite Imus as using a racist or racial slur, not the fact he called the women hos.)

It's Trump: The Musical!

In a bit of late-night comedic genius, last night on Jimmy Kimmel Live, Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick reprised their roles from The Producers. Except in this version, Bialystock (Lane) and Bloom (Broderick) are not Broadway show producers but political consultants, looking to get rich by finding the worst candidate, a real loser, and raising lots of money for themselves "him" by offering ambassadorships and other perks -- then keeping the money "when the public finds out what a nutcase our guy is, [and] he drops out of the race."

As in The Producers, and real life, however, things don't turn out as planned. Indeed, the more whacko things their candidate, Donald J. Trump, says, the more people love him.

I love this skit, but instead of "Trumped," they should have called it "Springtime for Trump,"  substituting Trump for Hitler in the lyrics, set it in America, and used Miss Universe contestants! I can see it now...

The USA was having trouble
What a sad, sad story
Needed a new leader to restore
Its former glory

Where oh where was he?
Where could that man be?
We looked around and then we found
The man for you and me and now it's

Springtime for Donald Trump and the USA
America is happy and gay
We're marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race

Springtime for Donald Trump and the USA
Winter for Mexico and Muslims
Springtime for Donald Trump and the USA...

The real reason Republicans are distancing themselves from Donald Trump

The real reason Republicans in the House and Senate (especially those up for re-election) are distancing themselves from Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump right now? It's not because of that just released, now infamous 2005 audio tape, where he bragged to Billy Bush* that he could get away with sexually assaulting women.

(Plenty of Trump's supporters actually admire Trump for his supposed way with the ladies -- a way that would land most of them in jail or at least fired from their job. While other Trump supporters brush off his crude, lewd, abusive talk as "locker room banter," though Trump is no athlete and was nowhere near a locker room and if a professional athlete was caught on tape saying that shit, you can bet your ass he would be in serious trouble.)

No, the real reason Republican Senators and Congressfolk and others are distancing themselves from the short-fingered vulgarian isn't because he's a vulgar, narcissistic, xenophobic, misogynistic, racist. It's because he's about to be a LOSER (or is now perceived as a loser) -- and they are terrified of being attached to, or going down on the ship with, a LOSER. (Remember, it's always the rats that are the first to leave a sinking ship.)

Remember how a bunch of prominent Republicans had distanced themselves from the Cheeto Cheater during the primaries and even after -- only to announce their support for him (or "the Republican nominee") when his poll numbers were looking up? Guess what happens every time his poll numbers go down? Yup, the rats jump ship.

And I'll tell you this, if for some reason the six-time bankrupt, Tic Tac-popping, serial-cheating, Putin-loving, spray-tanned, wouldn't-know-the-truth-if-it-was-plastered-on-the-side-of-a-skyscraper, tax-evading gas bag, aka the Republican nominee for President of the United States, does, for someone reason, get a bump in the polls between now and November 8th, many of those rats will clamber back aboard the S.S. Trump.


*who I have been unable to watch since he came to TODAY, especially after he defended Ryan Lochte, NBC needs to get him off the air.

5 ways to fight Trump and make America great again

I, like many Americans, am sickened and angered by Donald Trump and his administration -- and the willingness of the GOP to kowtow to or silently accept Trump's heinous behavior and actions.

Trump has nominated people totally unqualified and/or unfit to take office. And since becoming president (words that are extremely difficult for me to type), Trump has taken actions that threaten women's/human rights, the environment, healthcare, education, and the economy. (Let me know if I left anything out.) And it is highly unlikely that the Republican-controlled House and Senate will do anything to stop the Trumpocalypse, until, perhaps, it is too late.

So what can we horrified American citizens do to try to limit the damage Trump is inflicting on us? Here are some suggestions, which even my fellow introverts can do.

• Call your local Representative and Senators, who you can find via https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials. Whether you want them to know where you stand on an issue or how you'd like them to vote on an appointment or bill, it's important to call them.

• Follow your Representatives and Senators on Facebook and/or sign up for their email updates, to keep abreast of the issues, find out where they stand, and how you can help. Chris Murphy, one of my senators, constantly reaches out to his constituents to see where we stand on various issues, with polls and surveys, and I'd like to think my participation helps.

• Support organizations that will fight for the causes you believe in, either by donating money or time. Organizations I recently donated to, in the fight to protect our civil liberties, the environment, women's health, and those seeking asylum or refuge in this country, include the ACLU, the Environmental Defense Fund, Planned Parenthood, and the International Rescue Committee. But there are many more, which you can find via Charity Navigator (and other sites). 

• Support good journalism/investigative reporting. How? By purchasing a subscription to those newspapers and news organizations that are working hard to uncover the truth about Trump and his administration and those policies and actions that are detrimental to America and Americans.
  
  I personally have become a big fan of The Washington Post this election cycle (and started subscribing last year), and I'm a longtime supporter of NPR. But there are many fine organizations dedicated to providing good, fair, honest, hard-hitting journalism that could use your support, and you can find a list of them on the PEN Center.
  
  
• Last, but far from least, make sure you are registered to vote and vote in the mid-term elections, which will be on November 6, 2018. The only way to stop Trump -- and Pence, who may very well become President before November 6, 2018 -- is for the Democrats to win back the Senate and the House. Also, consider donating money and/or time to helping the good guys get re-elected or supporting candidates who oppose Trump and will fight for education, the environment, and women's and human rights.
  
  (Sadly, even moderate Republicans, if there are truly any, have proven that they will not defy Trump, no matter how much they may privately disagree with him. So the only way to put a check on his devastating policies is for Democrats to take back the House and Senate.)

Have any other ideas? Let us know via the Comments.

It's debatable

Here is my takeaway from last night's presidential debate: we're screwed.

It wasn't that Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) or Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) were awful. I thought they both did an okay job. But that is precisely the problem. Okay is just not good enough, not for me, not with what's going on here in the United States and abroad right now.

I was really hoping that last night one of the senators running for president would get me really excited and/or make me feel really confident that the country would be in really good hands come January 2009. But frankly, I don't know if anyone could do that at this point, not with a $580 billion (and counting) war going on, a $700 billion bailout looming over us, and trillions of dollars in debt. But to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld (yes, I am shocked as you are), as you know, you have to go to vote for the presidential candidates you have, not the presidential candidates you want.

But the candidates' answers to moderator Jim Lehrer's question (which I am paraphrasing) about what each candidate would cut or delay as a result of the $700 billion (or however much it winds up being) bailout just left me cold, or at best lukewarm.

On the bailout and all the other "lead" questions, I felt that Obama was more articulate and thoughtful in his answers -- and showed he had done his homework and came prepared for the debate. I also admired his ability to keep his cool when attacked by McCain (or else he really is a Vulcan, though I did see him smile occasionally) and not get flustered or obviously irritated.

McCain on the other hand, while not as articulate (check the transcript), was far more engaging, even though what he was saying did not always make sense or was something I agreed with. But the way McCain spoke, as well as his body language, showed caring and passion, which I think a lot of American people are looking for and probably need right now. Though McCain's obvious irritation (the constant smirking) really, really irritated me. (Also, was it me or did McCain look like the whitest guy you have ever seen, like Ultrabrite white?)

The bottom line is: If you came into the debate supporting or leaning towards McCain, you left that debate still a McCain supporter -- and will no doubt claim he showed that Obama. If you came into the debate supporting or leaning towards Obama, you likewise probably turned off the TV still an Obama supporter -- and will no doubt state, when or if asked, that Obama clearly had the edge. So let's just call it a wash. I don't think this debate was, as the pundits like to say, a "game changer."

Btw, if you missed last night's debate or would like to watch it again, go to http://www.mydebates.org/, a collaboration between MySpace.com and the Commission on Presidential Debates. And remember, the vice-presidential debate takes place on Thursday, October 2, at Washington University in St. Louis, and will be moderated by Gwen Ifill, and the next presidential debate is on October 7, and will be moderated by Tom Brokaw.

As for me, I am crawling back into bed and pulling the covers up over my head.

Miss California Carrie Prejean lost her top but kept her crown. The uncoverage continues.

Thank God for Matt Lauer and The TODAY Show and now Jon Stewart and The Daily Show for keeping Miss California Carrie Prejean -- and her breasts -- front and center. That hard-hitting interview (the fourth? fifth? sixth? I've lost count) Matt did with Ms. Prejean and Donald Trump this morning sure made for must-see TV. Not.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

[Note: As I was searching for this clip I discovered that there are SEVENTEEN video clips relating to Miss California Carrie Prejean up on the TODAY site right now. Seventeen clips. Wow.]

For the record, I do not believe for a second that Carrie Prejean had no clue that that photographer was taking pictures of her while her breasts were (somewhat) exposed. So spare me that pouty hurt look and stop blaming others for your indiscretions, sweetheart.

Oh, and how did The TODAY Show follow-up this hard-hitting story? With a piece featuring The Biggest Loser's Jillian Michaels discussing "Fat Talk," why it's bad for girls, and how girls get such bad body images. (Excuse me, TODAY producers, have you actually watched your show? Did you not see the preceding segment about that surgically enhanced, bleached blonde, Miss California? Hello!)

And in case anybody missed a second of Carrie and the Trumpster, TODAY's Hoda Kotbe and Kathie Lee Gifford rehashed it, steamy photos and all, at the top of the ten o'clock hour this morning.

It's like The TODAY Show's obsessed.

Unlike Jon Stewart and The Daily Show, which for weeks tried to avoid covering -- or uncovering -- the Miss California story, but finally gave in last night:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
The Pageant of the Christ
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Definitely a more proper venue for this ridiculous story -- and waaaay funnier. (Seriously, when is Comedy Central going to give Donald Trump his own show? "If her beauty wasn't so great, nobody would have cared"? Now that's funny!)

UPDATED 6/11/09: Alas, Carrie Prejean has been stripped... of her crown, allegedly for refusing to strip for Playboy. I know, I know. I am as shocked and disappointed as all of you.

The Madness of King Donald the Trump

Many (most?) of us who have observed Trump over the last year have questioned whether he is mentally fit to be president. However, after watching Trump's recent interview with ABC's David Muir, where he (Trump) told one whopper after another, there can be no doubt that Trump is unhinged. Deranged. Nuts. Psycho. Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

I could go on, but you get my drift. 

As a student of history, Trump's performance brought to mind another deranged ruler of this country, one who likewise lost the goodwill of most of his subjects here -- and caused a political crisis.

Who was this mad man? For those of you who have forgotten your U.S. History, or haven't seen Hamilton, I am, of course, referring to King George III, whose madness was captured in a brilliant 1994 film titled, appropriately, The Madness of King George.*



The similarities between Donald the First (and hopefully the last) and George the Third are striking, from the eccentric, disturbing behavior, to the grabbing of women, to the political tensions caused by his erratic behavior.

The only question is, will Americans rise up against Donald the Trump and kick him out as they did George the Third some two-hundred forty years ago?


*And yes, all you Hamilton lovers, in Hamilton, too. Though I'm pretty sure we won't be back, re-electing Trump... if we survive that long.