Today at National Review Online, check out my review of Salina Zito and Brad Todd’s book exploring of the populist forces that lifted Donald Trump into the White House.
2016
Hutchinson, Clinton, and Moore
StandardAlso today at The Federalist, I discuss antinomianism in religion and politics, and what it means about partisan defenses of Roy Moore and Al Franken.
Two new articles
StandardTwo new articles today:
- At Hardball Times, I looked at what the “Replacement” in “Wins Above Replacement” means, and highlighted a few players whose careers fit the bill.
- And at The Federalist, I reviewed Hillary Clinton’s new book, What Happened, and examine whether anything she says in it meaningfully adds to the political discourse.
Democrats Won’t Take Yes For An Answer on Comey
StandardAlso today at The Federalist: why Democrats are still mad that Trump fired the man they all hate.
Shattered
StandardToday at The Federalist, read my review of the new book, Shattered, the story of the 2016 Clinton campaign.
Citizens United: Does it matter?
StandardToday at The Federalist, I wrote about the effect of the Citizens United decision in the 2016 elections. Despite the doomsaying from the left, the best fundraising candidates lost, in primaries and the general.
Electoral Error
StandardToday at The Federalist, I wrote that respect for the Founding Fathers doesn’t mean you have to love everything they did, including the Electoral College. Check it out.
Philadelphia Votes, Part 2
StandardAfter posting that map of Philadelphia’s presidential votes the other day, I wanted to see how much had changed since 2012. So I came up with this:
You’re still looking at a vast sea of blue, but the differences jump out at you. Clinton and Obama both won the city easily, but Obama won it much more thoroughly. Trump won wide swathes of the 45th ward where Obama had carried every single division four years earlier. Trump’s victories in the Northeast were also much deeper and widespread. Even in the dark blue areas of North and West Philly, we can see that Obama was the stronger candidate. Where Clinton had three divisions with 100% of the votes for her, Obama had twenty-seven. The pattern held throughout the area. Clinton didn’t lose much of Obama’s totals, just a handful of votes in each division. But it was enough.
The Clintons’ One Foundation
StandardToday at The Federalist, I ask If The Clinton Foundation Was So Great, Why Aren’t Democrats Pushing Donations Now?
Philadelphia votes
StandardThis year, at last, the dream of Republicans in Pennsylvania came true as our swing state finally swung. It wasn’t my dream for 2016, exactly, since I voted for Johnson, but for many who pushed back against the idea that the Commonwealth was a purely Democratic state at the Presidential level, it was gratifying. In fact, according to Nate Silver’s 538 website, Pennsylvania was the tipping point in electing Trump.
Over the weekend, I charted the precinct-level results in Philadelphia, the city Hillary thought would save the state for her. As most observers of the Philly political scene would have expected, Clinton was weakest in the Far Northeast. I was also surprised at Trump’s strength in South Philly and the river wards. Trump’s best division (we call precincts divisions here) was in South Philly, 39-14, where he tallied 70.3% of the vote (it’s the big one in the far south of the 39th ward). Clinton had three divisions in North Philly where the people chose her unanimously (29-07, 29-16, and 32-29,) which I’ve marked with asterisks on the map. There were also two ties, both in the Northeast (64-17 and 66-18).
Most of this is only of interest to my Pennsylvania readers, but I hope you all enjoy the map. You can click on it to zoom in, but the file is pretty big, so it may take a minute.
