GATEWAY PUNDIT did what I wanted to do… and GP notes the following: “…Hillary Clinton lost more electors than any politician in the last 100 years. Not since 1912 has a candidate lost more electors.” The Final Count:
8 Clinton defectors
- 4 WA (successful)
- 1 HI (successful)
- 1 MN (attempted)
- 1 ME (attempted)
- 1 CO (attempted)
2 Trump defectors
- TX (successful)
Gateway Pundit goes on to list past “unfaithful electors” of the past, a great summary of our history in this regard, here’s the list:
- 2004 – Anonymous (Democrat, Minnesota)
- 2000 – Barbara Lett-Simmons (Democrat, District of Columbia)
- 1988 – Margaret Leach (Democrat, West Virginia)
- 1976 – Mike Padden (Republican, Washington)
- 1972 – Roger L. MacBride (Republican, Virginia)
- 1968 – Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey (Republican, North Carolina)
- 1960 – Henry D. Irwin (Republican, Oklahoma)
- 1956 – W.F. Turner (Democrat, Alabama)
- 1948 – Preston Parks (Democrat, Tennessee)
- 1912 – Eight Republican Electors
The popular belief was that many electorates were going to defect (called, “unfaithful”) from Trump. In the end, more “unfaithful electorates” defected from Hillary Clinton than from Donald Trump. I find this HILARIOUS! Why? Because Trump even came out a winner in this arena as well. As Powerline notes, only two electors were “unfaithful” to Trump. Four ignored Clinton’s win in their states. In fact, there would have been more unfaithful electorates for Hillary if state law didn’t prohibit it, like the “chaos” over state rules in Colorado:
Here are Democrats showing support for this Republic in Wisconsin:
…and Pennsylvania:
US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT notes:
President Barack Obama’s election was supposed to be the kickoff of a new progressive era. The Democrats were in line to win everything, pass anything they wanted through Congress, run the table in most of the states and leave the Republicans holed up in a redoubt somewhere between Idaho and Utah.
It didn’t happen. In fact, it is almost as though the reverse is true. Under Obama, the Democrats lost control of both congressional chambers and more than 800 state legislative seats, with the result that more states will be under unified GOP control than at any time since the 1920s. Not that you’ll hear much about that, as it runs counter to a narrative that reached a fevered pitch during the last election.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was supposed to win the presidency, ensuring the progressive tilt would continue despite opposition from a Republican-led House of Representatives. The U.S. Senate was supposed to flip too, something the pundits started saying right after the last election, because so many Republicans were up in swing states in what was going to be a bad year for the GOP.
The icing on the cake was New York real estate developer Donald Trump, who almost everyone (specifically with the exception of me) wrote and said time and again was not just “unelectable,” but was so unqualified he’d take the rest of the party down with him like the Nixon legacy of Watergate did in 1974.
[….]
The GOP has fissures it will need to address over the next few years. Not everyone in the party is behind what Trump wants to do on every issue. But that’s nothing compared to the way the Democrats, whose national leadership has said it sees little reason to change the party’s overall approach to government or its underlying philosophy, are falling apart. In several states “the party of conscience,” as the Democrats have been casting themselves during a week and a half of earnest lobbying of Trump electors, needed to have “faithless electors” of their own removed from the Electoral College and replaced by Clinton loyalists who would vote as directed….