Sunday, July 23, 2017

This Book

This book is for the United States of America that cannot be deprived of its fine tomorrow, and this is also for the world that refuses to be plunged into darkness.


THEIR LAST STAND is also dedicated to the peoples and countries in the Middle-East, Asia, and Africa that are humane and that are suffering from established dictatorships, societies that are suffocating from overwhelming oppression and brutal repression but that still view democracy, freedom, social justice, liberty, equality and progress as the tools that can be used to retain their humanity, an understanding per se that makes them prepared to oppose their oppressors, especially in countries like Cameroon, Chad, Congo Gabon, Eritrea, Gambia, Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe.



Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Tuesday, July 11, 2017



TRIPLE AGENT, DOUBLE CROSS

“Triple Agent, Double Cross is a taut and engrossing thriller… there is authenticity in the attitudes it takes, and credibility in the characters, settings, and situations it portrays…The structure of the novel is clear and comprehensible, and it is constructed with a strong sense of dramatic necessities such as timing and suspense, and the need for constant action and interaction…the author keeps up the critical tension that takes the reader through the book…The actual writing, the literary style, is first class and entirely appropriate to the genre…the reader is effortlessly transported from the opening pages, into the world of the novel, and dare not leave until the very end. The writing is strong and fluent, and therefore maximizes the potential brought to the book by an impressive, cleverly constructed plot…This is a professional and an accomplished piece of writing.”
—Angelina Anton
Editorial Director of Minerva Press

“A mind-stirring fiction that sticks long after you have read it.”
—The Post

“A story no thriller fan can afford to put away.”
—Michael Wette

“A spellbinder that deals with historical abortions, politics, espionage, sex, love, war, and international conspiracies.”
—John Tiohnjang

“Triple Agent, Double Cross is a fascinating page turner of swirling proportions where love, hate, sex, war, secret motives and grand conspiracies become so interwoven much that the characters find themselves trapped in a world they cannot escape.”
—Bernard Kaba

Epilogue


November 2008
Conakry, Guinea



The night before was unusually rainy for the Guinean capital. The heavy rainfall could have been considered an irritation if not a catastrophe elsewhere in the world for the flooding it caused in some of the neighborhoods in the city. But for most of the residents of Conakry still reeling from the intense heat wave that blighted the country for more than two weeks, the torrential rains came as a welcome relief. It enlivened their spirits and even brought life to the flora that had been wilting and dying from the intense heat wave from the Sahara Desert. The rain also washed the thick layers of dust off the streets, giving some originality to the color of the asphalt roads.      
      However, for a man walking the streets of Conakry that morning, the effects of the rain and the nature of the city were of no interest to him. His mind was on the Cameroun cemetery.
The man crossed the November 8 Bridge as if nothing else mattered in the world, even though he stayed conscious of the sounds and activities around him. He raised his head fully only once, just as he walked past the Donka hospital located in the city center.
       Any curious bystander watching him at that moment would likely have noticed the thoughtful expression on his face that gave him the academic demeanor of a professor grappling with a worrying phenomenon. The patches of grey hair on the man’s head made it look like he was balding prematurely, since it contrasted with his athletic gait that could only have been expected from a physically fit person in his late thirties or early forties. However, the stranger was a quinquagenarian with more life experiences than most men his age.



4  |  Religion
5  |  Ethnicity
6  |  Immigration
10 |  Turnout
11 |  Rural Voters
13 |  Education
       Conclusion
         Titles by the author
          Copyright








Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.
George Washington

Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.
Thomas Jefferson

If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
John Quincy Adams

The best people possess a feeling for beauty, the courage to take risks, the discipline to tell the truth, the capacity for sacrifice. Ironically, their virtues make them vulnerable; they are often wounded, sometimes destroyed.                                        
Ernest Hemingway

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
Marcus Aurelius








This book is for the United States of America that cannot be deprived of its fine tomorrow, and this is also for the world that refuses to be plunged into darkness.

This is more especially for Man in the post-modernist world as we try to make sense of reality not only Humans who are in sync with their surroundings but also as beings who are in acceptance of their purpose.

This is also dedicated to the people and countries in the Middle-East, Asia, and Africa that are humane and that are suffering from established dictatorships, overwhelming oppression and brutal repression, but who still view democracy, freedom, social justice, liberty, equality and progress as the tools that would prevent them from becoming dehumanized, and so are prepared to oppose their oppressors, especially in countries like Cameroon, Chad, Congo Gabon, Eritrea, Gambia, Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe.


Map of the USA
2008 Presidential Election Map
2012 Presidential Election Map





2016 Presidential Election Map
    Democratic Party
    Republican Party
    Libertarian Party
    Green Party
    Constitution Party


Summary of results of the 2004-2016 Presidential Elections:
    States carried by the Republicans in all four elections
    States carried by the Republicans in three of the four elections
    States carried by each party twice in the four elections
    States carried by the Democrats in three of the four elections
    States carried by the Democrats in all four elections












Hardly anyone will disagree with you when you tell them that the United States of America just witnessed a presidential race that would be remembered for a very long time as the most unpredictable, most abnormal and most unconventional in its recent history. The 2016 race for the White House that pitted Donald John Trump as the Republican Party front-runner against Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton of the Democratic Party produced the greatest upset in American politics. It was an electoral race where the media stood solidly behind the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton; it was a contest where the upper echelons of the Democratic Party and most of the top brass of the Republican Party did not hide their resentment of the Republican nominee Donald Trump, thereby confirming him in the eyes of the electorate as an anti-establishment candidate that stirs trepidation in the bosoms of the political elites of the country.
Donald Trump whom the Republican Party’s elites viewed as an outsider, and who is considered a maverick by the rest of the populace because of his non-affiliation with traditional politics, won all right, and he rode to victory in a resounding manner. This political novice with  a knack for being politically incorrect by “saying things as they really are” or for being “brutally honest”,  won in a race where the machinery of the Obama administration, the repertoire of Hillary Clinton’s husband and former president William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton) and his retinue  were at the full disposal of Hilary Clinton to ensure that the  election be a smooth walkover for her or a stroll into the White House that would have made her the first female president in the history of the United States of America. But as it turned out, the Democratic Party nominee failed in a resounding manner that is going to reverberate for a long time.
Yes, Donald Trump defied the odds all right. The president-elect is going to become the next president of the United States of America unless something dramatic happens. He is going to be the number one citizen of the country, much to the consternation of the political elites and financial heavyweights in the USA and the rest of the world.
The billionaire’s win defied the media forecasts or predictions as poll after poll showed him lagging behind his rival with wide margins before election day. So, it is not surprising that most Americans and the citizens of other countries of the world are wondering what factors contributed to Donald Trump’s win? In fact, most curious Americans would like to know why the different branches of the mainstream media failed so many times in their predictions? Why did pundits fail consistently in analyzing the Trump enigma? How is his win going to change America’s political landscape?
This book provides answers to the above questions, answers that lie in the ignored, downplayed and underrated aspects of the makeup of America that Donald Trump successfully tapped, so that they have become major factors that can no longer be kept under wraps. Donald Trump’s win not only elicits answers to America’s changing political landscape, but it also provides insights into the socio-cultural, political and economic transformation of America as it confronts the reality of a growing multi-polar world. In fact, the issues raised by the victory of this maverick and political novice will henceforth become fundamental factors in deciding future presidential races because no politician would be able to ignore them again and expect to win a Presidential Election.





The Clinton campaign should have heeded the alarm bells set off by the piece 5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win, written before the elections by  the famous American documentary filmmaker and author Michael Francis Moore who rose to fame from his 2002 book “Stupid White Men...and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!” and from his 2004 documentary film “Fahrenheit 9/11” that talked about  the 43rd US. President George W. Bush, and the War on Terror. After all, he is a left-wing liberal.  Even the other insightful piece BROKEN ENGAGEMENT: Why a Donald Trump Win in the 2016 Presidential Election Defies the Predictions of the Media and the Political establishment, should have been taken seriously as the final warning cry coming on the heels of a series of earlier pronouncements about the reasons why the Republican Presidential nominee Donald John Trump stood to win the 2016 race for the White House against Hillary Rodham Clinton of the Democratic Party.
Apparently, the anti-Trump campaign was oblivious of the warnings from these two unrelated pieces, which were certainly a few of the many similar predictions out there defying the popular forecasts from the mainstream media and polling agencies showing Hillary Clinton as the candidate ahead in the polls and as the front-runner expected to win the 2016 race for the White House. But the results below show that it was not the case. The Republican Party nominee pulled off a dramatic upset over her Democratic Party rival in what many pundits, newsmen, newswomen, scholars, and pollsters consider to be the biggest electoral surprise in the history of Presidential Elections in the USA.

Results of the 2016 Presidential Election
Presidential candidate
Party
Popular Vote
Electoral
vote
Count
Percentage
62,853,327
46.09%
306
65,515,369
48.05%
232
4,478,969
3.28%
0
1,450,670
1.06%
0
656,095
0.48%
0
199,895
0.15%
0
Other
1,205,061
0.88%
Total
136,359,386
100%
538
Needed to win
270


Months before the election and even right up to election day itself, Hillary Clinton led in almost every national poll in Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Yet, she ended up losing those states. In fact, the average absolute difference between polling average and final vote in the 10 states closest to the national average revealed that her poll results were off the final result by 3.9 points, the highest in any election since 1988. This is compared to 2.3 points in 2012, 1.7 points in 2008 and 2004, 1.9 points in 2000, 2.3 points in 1996, 3.4 points in 1992 and 1988.
Most Americans and the overwhelming majority of the citizens of other countries of the world are still reeling from the unexpected results, which hardly anyone would disagree turned out to be the most unpredictable, most abnormal and most unconventional race for the White House in the recent history of the United States of America.
No one can pretend that the shock victory of the Republican Party nominee, businessman and reality television star from New York Donald John Trump over Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton of the Democratic Party has not turned the evolutionary nature of American politics upside down. In fact, it has ushered into office a novice with no past political experience, with no clearly defined political ideology and with a history of unfriendly or hostile relations with most of the elites of both the Republican Party on whose ticket he rode to victory, and the Democratic Party that people still remember he was formerly a member of.
This most unconventional election in American history that defied the predictions of most political pundits, the mainstream the media and the general conventions, and then ended up bringing to power a maverick with a populist streak, will be remembered for generations as a "Go to Hell” expression from mostly White Americans, especially white men. It is a rebuff of the elites of both the Republican and Democratic parties who thrive in alliance with the giant corporations, the corporate or mainstream media, and the financial institutions (Wall Street, the banks, the insurance companies and the Credit companies). And strangely enough, Donald Trump, the poster child of this blunt rejection of the political establishment, happens to be a renegade child of the political establishment, which he worked with to build his business empire, and on which he created the base that he launched his political bid for the White House from. But then, he turned around and confronted them. 
This renegade of the political establishment may be considered a peculiar president-elect whose vague agenda to turn the political establishment upside down and  whose pledge  to “Make America Great Again”,  smacks of Anarchism  than  conservatism or  any of the other shades of Right-wing Republican ideology around which clear programs have been hatched in the past to right the short-comings of the American system, a setup that for centuries proved to be the most progressive socio-economic/political system the world has ever seen, a system that has been the standard bearer of the free world, a system that stands to retain its emulative role if properly harnessed and revamped.

·         How did Donald Trump, considered a political outsider by everyone, capture a political party whose leadership shunned him, and then lead it to win the White House in a race that was apparently unwinnable for him and the Republican Party whose ticket he was riding on?
·         How come a maverick known for his non-affiliation with traditional politics, a maverick who is considered a political novice by most pundits and who has a knack for being politically incorrect by “saying things the way they really are”, or the way he feels they are; how come this outsider who many people viewed as someone with a knack for being “brutally honest” managed to hold a great country like America in suspense, and then  turned things around and won the race for the White House against all the odds?
Yes, the odds were stacked against Donald Trump, yet he prevailed. And he triumphed in a brilliant manner.
Stacked against the Republican candidate in the 2016 Presidential Election were:
·         the no-nonsense Obama administration and its political machinery that won the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections with wide margins,
·         the all-powerful mainstream media,
·         an opponent with a formidable alliance centered around the administration of Hillary Clinton’s husband—the former president William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton) and his retinue, all at the service of the Democratic candidate,
·         the divided ranks of the upper echelons of the Republican Party, where most of the party’s elites vehemently opposed the Republican nominee,
·         what some viewed as a corporatocracy that did not consider the Republican nominee and billionaire as one of their own,
·         a Wall Street and big financial institutions who were not enamored of him and whom he snubbed by not seeking their financial contributions to fund his election campaign,
·         Hillary Clinton running as the first female presidential candidate in the history of the United States of America, hence a source of attraction for voters with a desire to make history with their votes.
So, why then did  the election end up not being the walkover  that so many pundits and even the common folk had predicted, and that  the Democratic Party had promised; why then did the election fail to be the thrashing of Donald Trump that was supposed to silence the Republican candidate forever; why then was the election not an easy victory for Hillary Clinton, a stroll into the White House that would have made her the first female president in the history of the United States of America, and the first person in the country’s history to hold the positions of president after making a name for herself in previous positions as the country’s First Lady, as a senator and as America’s secretary of state?
The answers were predictable to those with curious and analytical minds.

2016 Presidential Election Results by States
States won by Clinton/Kaine
States won by Trump/Pence
Electoral methods
·         WTA – Winner-takes-all
·         CD – Congressional district

Hillary Clinton
Democratic
Donald Trump
Republican
State or
district
Electoral
method
#
 %
Electoral
votes
#
 %
Electoral
votes
WTA
729,547
34.36
1,318,255
62.08
9
WTA
116,454
36.55
163,387
51.28
3
WTA
1,161,167
45.13
1,252,401
48.67
11
WTA
380,494
33.65
684,872
60.57
6
WTA
8,696,374
62.28
55
4,452,094
31.88
WTA
1,338,870
48.16
9
1,202,484
43.25
WTA
897,572
54.57
7
673,215
40.93
WTA
235,603
53.35
3
185,127
41.92
WTA
282,830
90.48
3
12,723
4.07
WTA
4,504,975
47.82
4,617,886
49.02
29
WTA
1,877,963
45.89
2,089,104
51.05
16
WTA
266,891
60.98
4
128,847
29.44
WTA
189,765
27.49
409,055
59.26
4
WTA
3,090,729
55.83
20
2,146,015
38.76
WTA
1,039,126
37.91
1,557,286
56.82
11
WTA
653,669
41.74
800,983
51.15
6
WTA
427,005
36.05
671,018
56.65
6
WTA
628,854
32.68
1,202,971
62.52
8
WTA
780,154
38.45
1,178,638
58.09
8
Maine (at-large)
CD[b]
352,156
47.84
2
332,418
45.16
CD[b]
210,921
53.95
1
154,173
39.43
CD[b]
143,952
41.06
180,665
51.53
1
WTA
1,677,928
60.33
10
943,169
33.91
WTA
1,995,196
60.01
11
1,090,893
32.81
WTA
2,268,839
47.27
2,279,543
47.50
16
WTA
1,367,716
46.44
10
1,322,951
44.92
WTA
462,127
39.74
678,284
58.32
6
WTA
1,054,889
37.84
1,585,753
56.88
10
WTA
177,709
35.75
279,240
56.17
3
Nebraska (at-lrg)
CD
284,494
33.70
495,961
58.75
2
CD
100,126
35.46
158,626
56.18
1
CD
131,030
44.92
137,564
47.16
1
CD
53,290
19.73
199,657
73.92
1
WTA
539,260
47.92
6
512,058
45.50
WTA
348,526
46.98
4
345,790
46.61
WTA
2,148,278
54.99
14
1,601,933
41.00
WTA
385,234
48.26
5
319,666
40.04
WTA
4,441,437
59.06
29
2,738,645
36.41
WTA
2,189,350
46.17
2,362,697
49.83
15
WTA
93,758
27.23
216,794
62.96
3
WTA
2,394,164
43.56
2,841,005
51.69
18
WTA
420,375
28.93
949,136
65.32
7
WTA
1,002,106
50.07
7
782,403
39.09
WTA
2,926,457
48.02
2,970,764
48.75
20
WTA
227,062
53.83
4
166,454
39.46
WTA
855,373
40.67
1,155,389
54.94
9
WTA
117,442
31.74
227,701
61.53
3
WTA
868,853
34.90
1,519,926
61.06
11
WTA
3,877,868
43.24
4,685,047
52.23
38
WTA
310,674
27.46
515,211
45.54
6
WTA
178,573
55.72
3
95,369
29.76
WTA
1,981,473
49.75
13
1,769,443
44.43
WTA
1,742,718
54.3
12
1,221,747
38.07
WTA
188,794
26.48
489,371
68.63
5
WTA
1,382,536
46.45
1,405,284
47.22
10
WTA
55,973
21.63
174,419
67.40
3
U.S. Total
65,758,070
48.07
232
62,916,237
45.99
306

Donald Trump defied the odds all right, won a resounding victory in the 2016 Presidential Election by garnering 306 Electoral votes against Hillary Clinton’s 232, much to the consternation of the political elites and financial heavyweights in the USA and the rest of the world, even though he lost by a margin of close to 3 million votes to Hillary Clinton. In fact, he lost the Popular Vote to the Democratic nominee by 62,958,481 to 65,818,412 (i.e. 46.00% to 48.10%).  He did so through a brilliant strategy that tapped the realities of the day. His campaigned focused more on where the votes mattered in a country where the winner of the highest number of Electoral votes wins the Presidential Election. He did so by not overstretching himself and by employing a deceptive campaign strategy that led his opponents to be wrong in their guess about him all the time.
Why Donald Trump’s opponents failed to smell a rat; why they failed to see that there was something unusual in this campaign when forecasts or predictions fell short one after the other, it is difficult to explain. After all, the Republican Party’s presidential candidate speedily bounced back from one self-inflicting wound after the other or from setback to setback, even after polls showed him lagging behind his Democratic Party rival with wide margins. Even no nonsense analysts were seen coming back shortly after the presentations of their damming reports, with new pronouncements stating that Donald Trump caught up again with Hillary Clinton. They even came back declaring that the Republican nominee was leading in some cases. They did so as if dragging their feet or as if feeling uneasy about admitting to the fact that there was a turn-around in events.  And they did so in a partisan manner because it was blatant to most of those following the campaign developments that the mainstream media and pollsters did not want Donald Trump to win. However, even right up to the last day, most polls showed Hillary Clinton leading her Republican counterpart. In short, the anomalies seen in the reporting during the Trump-Clinton race led to these unavoidable questions:

·         Why was the media found wanting so many times in their predictions?
·         Why did pundits fail consistently in analyzing the Trump enigma in a race that everyone agreed had the potential of causing an earthquake in the political setup of America?

We find the answers to the above questions in the ignored, downplayed and underrated aspects of the makeup of America that Donald Trump did a formidable job of tapping, so that not only did they become major and decisive factors in the 2016 Presidential Election, they would forever be recognized in future electoral races as major resources to tap in order to determine the person that would lead the world’s last superpower. These factors have been mushrooming or growing rapidly over the past thirty years under different administrations (Republican and Democratic). The mainstream media, the political establishment, the corporations and the financial institutions wanted to keep these factors under wraps, but Donald Trump’s victory has brought them to the surface so that they have become fundamental issues that no future presidential aspirant would be able to ignore in the race for the White House.















Table of Presidential Elections by states since 1988
     Republican win over 5%      Republican win under 5% 
     Democratic win over 5%      Democratic win under 5% 
     Electoral college winner

Year
National 
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Bush
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Clinton
Dole
Bush
Bush
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Dukakis
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Obama
Obama
Trump
Bush
Clinton
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Dukakis
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
Obama
Romney
Trump
Dukakis
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Bush
Obama
Obama
Trump
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Maine
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Gore (ME-02)
Trump (ME-02)
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Dukakis
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Trump
Dukakis
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry[33]
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Clinton
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Obama (NE-02)
Trump (NE-02)
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Bush
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Dukakis
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
Obama
Romney
Trump
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Obama
Obama
Trump
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Dukakis
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Trump
Dukakis
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Dukakis
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Clinton
Dukakis
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump
Dukakis
Clinton
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Obama
Trump
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump


This account is not only an examination of the factors or game changers that enabled Donald Trump to win the 2016 Presidential Election, but it is also the careful construction of an idea of how America can avoid the divisive politics haunting the country in the bid to find a balance between the different interest groups in the American society.




The rest of the world often marvels at the US. electoral system, especially when it comes to its presidential electoral system where the Electoral vote count more than the Popular Vote. In fact, the majority in virtually every country of the world considers it an anachronism that has managed to survive the passing years, a relic of a misconceived 18th-century, slavery-era, state-by-state, a winner-take-all system for selecting the president of the United States of America that should have no place in the modern world. These foreign entities—both pro-democracy and anti-democracy forces, agree that the Electoral College process which the Founding Fathers established in the Constitution as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and the election of the President by a Popular Vote of qualified citizens—gives democracy a bad name in the modern era and that it should be scrapped altogether. Most Americans agree too, and Hillary Clinton is or was one of these who wanted to see those changes.
In fact, in November 2000, just after winning the race to become the Senator of New York, the bright-faced Hilary Clinton announced that she would introduce a constitutional amendment that would see to the abolition of the Electoral College, a promise she never pursued, and something she regrets not doing because the very Electoral College process just deprived her of becoming the first female president of the United States of America had her victory in the Popular Vote in the 2016 Presidential Election been the only determinant in the race.


 US. Map and its constituent states

Changes to the Electoral map
The electoral map in 2008.


Changes in Electoral vote after the 2010 census.




The Electoral Map—Electoral votes per State

A small peek at the results of the last election shows that Hillary Clinton won 65,736,140 of the Popular Vote against Donald Trump’s 62,895,938, giving her 48% of the votes against Donald Trump’s 46%. The fact that she had this margin of close to 3 million votes over her Republican rival, yet lost the election due to the Electoral College process, which gave Donald Trump 306 Electoral votes and apportioned 232 to her on November 09, 2016, left a feeling of political rancor among her supporters. 538 electors make up the Electoral College. To elect the President, a majority of 270 or more Electoral votes is required. This explains why Electoral College-wise, Donald Trump had a landslide victory over Hillary Clinton.
Broadly speaking, many of those who believe in popular democracy consider Donald Trump’s victory, which came on the back of the Electoral College, a sacrilege that deserves not only to be overturned, but that should never be allowed to repeat itself again. Yet Hillary Clinton is not the only candidate in the history of the United States of America that won the Popular Vote and lost the Electoral College. It happened before in 1824 to John Quincy Adams, in 1876 to Samuel J. Tilden, in 1888 to Grover Cleveland, and in 2000 to Albert Gore, Jr.  However, what is peculiar about this travesty of popular democracy is the fact that the victims of the Electoral College twist have always been Democratic Party nominees. So, it is understandable why more than 70% of Democrats and Hillary Clinton supporters consider the Electoral College process an unfair process and wish to see it reformed or abolished altogether. This is an upswing from 66% based on a 2013 Gallup poll. In fact, back then, most Americans irrespective of the political parties they were affiliated to, supported doing away with the Electoral College.

A deeper appraisal of the mechanism for apportioning the Electoral votes reveals that it is not accurate, especially since demography, and more precisely, the population of a state is highly considered in deciding the number of Electoral votes the state gets. Yet, there are many mismatches between states when comparing their populations and their number of Electoral votes. The most glaring disparity is between California and Wyoming. As of July 2014, California has a population of 38,802,500 (12.18% of the total population of the USA), and has 55 Electoral votes (a share of 10.22 of the Total Electoral vote), giving it a ratio of 1 Electoral vote per 691,662 inhabitants. Wyoming, which is the smallest of all the US. States population-wise counts 584,153 souls within its borders (0.18% of the total US. Population), and boasts of 3 Electoral votes (0.56% of the Total Electoral votes), giving it a ratio of 192,137 people per Electoral vote. This discrepancy is not seen only between California and Wyoming. It abounds as the table below shows.
So, it is easy to deduce from the above information why Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and lost the Electoral Vote. She won hugely in states where the ratio of Electoral votes to the size of the population is much higher. 

Population Map of the States in 2013






State Population and Electoral votes—July 1, 2014, estimate.
R
A
N
K
State
Population
House
Seats
Pop. per
House
Seat
Pop. per
Elect.
Vote
Pop. per
Senate
Seat
% of 
Total
US
Pop
% of
Total
Elect.
Vote
1
38,802,500
53
55
717,763
691,662
19,401,250
12.18
10.22
2
26,956,958
36
38
723,867
685,769
13,478,479
8.55
7.06
3
19,893,297
27
29
715,465
666,123
9,946,649
6.31
5.39
4
19,746,227
27
29
724,824
674,837
9,873,114
6.16
5.39
5
12,880,580
18
20
715,292
643,763
6,440,290
4.00
3.71
6
12,787,209
18
20
709,085
638,177
6,393,605
3.98
3.71
7
 Ohio
11,594,163
16
18
721,514
641,346
5,797,082
3.61
3.34
8
10,097,343
14
16
708,568
619,997
5,048,672
3.18
2.97
9
9,943,964
13
15
750,159
650,138
4,971,982
3.12
2.79
10
9,909,877
14
16
705,954
617,710
4,954,939
3.11
2.97
11
8,938,175
12
14
738,716
633,185
4,469,088
2.79
2.60
12
8,326,289
11
13
744,170
629,682
4,163,145
2.61
2.42
13
7,061,530
10
12
689,701
574,751
3,530,765
2.23
2.23
14
6,745,408
9
11
738,460
604,195
3,372,704
2.21
2.05
15
6,731,484
9
11
728,139
595,750
3,365,742
2.11
2.05
16
6,596,855
9
11
726,370
594,303
3,298,428
2.06
2.05
17
6,549,352
9
11
717,360
586,931
3,274,676
2.05
2.05
18
6,063,589
8
10
752,749
602,199
3,031,795
1.89
1.86
19
5,976,407
8
10
735,570
588,456
2,988,204
1.87
1.86
20
5,757,564
8
10
715,800
572,640
2,878,782
1.80
1.86
21
5,457,173
8
10
672,392
537,914
2,728,587
1.71
1.86
22
5,355,856
7
9
741,083
576,398
2,677,928
1.70
1.67
23
4,849,377
7
9
688,860
535,780
2,424,689
1.51
1.67
24
4,832,482
7
9
674,818
524,858
2,416,241
1.52
1.67
25
4,649,676
6
8
766,982
575,237
2,324,838
1.45
1.49
26
4,413,457
6
8
730,069
547,552
2,206,729
1.38
1.49
27
3,970,239
5
7
779,871
557,050
1,985,120
1.25
1.30
28
3,878,051
5
7
762,964
544,974
1,939,026
1.22
1.30
29
3,596,677
5
7
718,059
512,907
1,798,339
1.13
1.30
30
 Iowa
3,107,126
4
6
768,547
513,364
1,553,563
0.97
1.12
31
2,994,079
4
6
737,283
491,522
1,497,040
0.93
1.12
32
2,984,926
4
6
746,232
497,488
1,492,463
0.93
1.12
33
 Utah
2,942,902
4
6
713,822
475,881
1,471,451
0.93
1.12
34
2,904,021
4
6
721,476
480,984
1,452,011
0.91
1.12
35
2,839,099
4
6
689,733
459,822
1,419,550
0.90
1.12
36
2,085,572
3
5
695,179
417,108
1,042,786
0.65
0.93
37
1,881,503
3
5
618,508
371,105
940,752
0.59
0.93
38
1,850,326
3
5
618,471
371,083
925,163
0.57
0.93
39
1,634,464
2
4
797,864
398,932
817,232
0.51
0.74
40
1,419,561
2
4
696,157
348,078
709,781
0.45
0.74
41
1,330,089
2
4
664,596
332,298
665,045
0.45
0.74
42
1,326,813
2
4
660,359
330,180
663,407
0.41
0.74
43
1,055,173
2
4
525,146
262,273
527,587
0.33
0.74
44
1,023,579
1
3
1,005,141
335,047
511,790
0.32
0.56
45
935,614
1
3
917,092
305,697
467,807
0.29
0.56
46
853,175
1
3
833,354
277,785
426,588
0.27
0.56
47
739,482
1
3
699,628
233,209
369,741
0.24
0.56
48
737,732
1
3
736,732
243,816
368,866
0.23
0.56
49
626,011
1
3
626,562
208,670
313,006
0.19
0.56
50
584,153
1
3
576,412
192,137
292,077
0.18
0.56




Another shortcoming of the Electoral College is its slowness and untimeliness when it comes to making adjustments to the division of Electoral votes. These changes aimed at reflecting the decline or increase in the population of the different states in the USA take place once every ten years, which is usually after every census. In effect, that means elections held a couple of years between censuses do not truly reflect the changes in the size of the populations of the different states, changes that are expected to be uneven because some states experience higher population growth than others. In fact, California, Florida and Texas account for close to half (48%) of the population growth in the United States of America between 2014 and 2015, even though when the populations of these states are combined, they account for only 27 percent of the US. Population. And with only 22.67 Electoral votes between them in the 2016 Presidential Election, it is fair to say that they got cheated out of about 5 Electoral votes. One can even say that since Donald Trump won in Florida and Texas, two states whose Electoral votes exceeds California’s when combined, he did not get a bad deal, especially when talking only about those three states. And Clinton didn’t get a bad deal either when taking only these three growth states into account. Now, the combined population of these three states is projected to exceed 100 million by 2030, and would account for about 30 percent of the USA’s total. This leaves most pundits wondering whether future changes to the apportioning of Electoral votes are going to take this growth into account.

So, the question looms. Can Americans bet on appropriate adjustments to the Electoral College process in a manner that would reflect the demographic changes these three states are experiencing owing to a combination of factors like natural population growth that is above the national average because of high birth rates among first-generation and second-generation immigrants, and also because of the high domestic and international migration to these warm states due to their good economies among other things?


Population Growth of California, Florida, and Texas

As Americans grapple with the question of the Electoral College process and try to figure out ways to make it effective so that it does not embarrass the country with results that are out of sync with the Popular Vote, we have people who go about looking for answers by first wondering how this two-and-a-half century mechanism came about. So, these questions loom:

·         How did the United States of America come to adopt the Electoral College process?
·         What is the way forward to make the Electoral College an enriching component of the American Electoral Process, so that it stops playing a controversial role in the election of future presidents of the United States of America?

This unique aspect of American democracy came about during the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The delegates were particularly distrustful of the “passions of the people”, and strongly believed that the average voter lacked the ability to “wisely” choose a president in a national election, so they came up with the Electoral College—a system that gave each state a number of electors based on the number of members the states get in Congress—one for each member of the House of Representatives plus two for the Senators. The Congress would then set a date during which the state legislatures would select electors, who, on a chosen date, would convene in their respective state capitals to cast their votes for the President and Vice-President of the United States of America.
The Electoral College might have been a practical process back in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, since there were no political parties at the time for the electors to choose the President and his Vice-President from, a situation that made the whole process seem like a one-party democracy of patriots.  All that was expected from these electors were for them to use their best judgment to choose a president and his vice in an atmosphere devoid of partisan politics. And since the electors were people who took pride in their rationality, they made sure they carried out the election in such a patriotic manner that the system looked for a long time like an infallible form of voting. In fact, many pundits today look at the nonpartisan atmosphere at the time as America’s golden age of democracy, where the stakeholders believed they had an optimal system that was invaluable in the process of building a great democracy and a great country.  But there is an often-unspoken aspect of the nature of the democracy the founding fathers practiced. 
The Electoral College was also created with the objective of protecting the interests of southern slaveholders. And since there were people back then who could not turn a blind eye to slavery, among whom were those who were even vehemently opposed to it, the process could not be universally accepted as perfect. Called progressives at the time, these anti-slavery upholders of democracy had misgivings about the Electoral College process and were eventually rewarded in their wishes to see it reformed. That came about with the rise of the two-party system in the nineteenth century.
The two-party system forced the Electoral College to evolve, so that with the exception of Nebraska and Maine, states could choose their electors based on a winner-take-all basis. In the last century, voters did not have to dwell on the merits or the demerits of the Electoral votes because those candidates the American people voted in as president won both the Electoral votes and the Popular Votes.  However, things changed right at the start of the twenty-first century when in the 2000 Presidential Election, the Democratic nominee Al Gore won the Popular Vote and lost the Electoral vote to George W. Bush of the Republican Party. So, the fact that it has happened again 16 years after, thereby depriving the America people once again of their chance of making history by voting to power the country’s first female president, many Americans, the majority of Americans in fact, do not find it funny anymore.
Still, we have people who continue to defend the Electoral College process, arguing that it provides a check on the public in case the people make an unwise choice for president of the greatest country on earth. They hold onto the rightness of their views even though it is obvious today that party conventions and party leaders choose electors because of their loyalty to their parties and not because of their deep patriotism. And since most Americans do not take this argument seriously anymore because the United States of America is now a country of multi-party politics where electors are no longer seen as independent agents or even as agents of the state legislature, there is a need to decide again on whether to carry out a major reformation of the Electoral College or whether to abolish it altogether.
Nobody disputes the fact that the electors have rarely acted independently and rarely went against the wishes of the party that chose them. There are even laws in most states making it a requirement for the electors to keep their pledges in casting their votes. This explains why over 99 percent of electors kept their pledges to the candidates of their parties in the Presidential Elections between 1992 and 2012. 
So, should we have expected some of the Republican Electors not to vote for Donald Trump in the Electoral College process?
·         It was highly unlikely since that would have vindicated Donald Trump’s claim that the political establishment (the elites of both the Republican and Democratic parties) were against him for malicious reasons that do not serve the interest of America and the average American.




Map of the 2016 Electoral College

Presidential Election results map of the Electoral College process held on December 19, 2016.
·         Red denotes states Donald Trump and his elected vice president Mike Pence won.
·         Blue denotes those states won by Hillary Clinton and his running mate Tim Kaine.
·         The other colors represent seven cases where renegades or faithless electors defied the political parties they were representing and cast their votes for others as a sign of protests. These electors were in Texas, Washington, and Hawaii and voted for Colin Powell (3), John Kasich (1), Ron Paul (1), Faith Spotted Eagle (1), or Bernie Sanders (1). Numbers indicate Electoral votes allotted to the winner of each state.







Results of the December 19, 2016 Electoral College Process
vote
vote
National
Pledged
National
Tim Kaine 227
Pledged
David Mulinix
John Kasich (R-OH)
one vote (by whom is unknown)
for
Carly Fiorina (R-CA)
one vote for Mike Pence
Texas
Ron Paul (L-TX / R-TX)
Washington
Colin Powell (R-VA)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Washington
Colin Powell (R-VA)
Washington


The fact that there were altogether 7 electors who went rogue in the Electoral College process that ended on December 19, 2016 says a lot about the two major candidates in the 2016 Presidential Election, and gives Americans a better understanding of the depth of division not only within their respective parties, but also in the general society.
The December 19, 2016 Electoral College process stunned Americans with the high number of renegade electors (5 in total) from the Democratic Party:
·         From the state of Washington, 3 electors of the Democratic Party chose Collin Powell who is a Republican, and then split their votes when it came to the position of vice-president, choosing Maria Cantwell (a Democrat from Washington), Elizabeth Warren (a Democrat from Maryland) and Susan Collins (a Republican from Maine).
·         Robert Satiacum Jr., a Democratic Party elector from Washington state, took his renegation a step further by choosing for president Faith Spotted Eagle, a female member of the Yankton Sioux Nation who helped block development of the Keystone XL pipeline and the Dakota Access Pipeline. For the position of vice-president, Robert Satiacum Jr. chose Winona LaDuke, an environmentalist of mixed Jewish/Native-American background.
·         Democratic elector David Mulinix from Hawaii tried to send home a different message in her choice for the person to represent him as president of the United States of America by casting his vote for Bernie Sanders who lost in the primaries to Hillary Clinton. His vote for Elizabeth Warren, who is also of the Democratic Party, to be Bernie Sander’s deputy, gave his protest vote some credulity since Bernie Sanders has a high standing among the left-wingers in the Democratic Party who ae still ruing his loss in the primaries.

The 2 rogue or “faithless” electors of the Republican Party that made statements with their votes in the Electoral College process came from Texas. Christopher Suprun and an unknown Republican elector voted for Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich, who won the third-place in the 2016 Republican primaries, and for Ron Paul who was a candidate in the 2012 Republican Party primaries. They settled for Mike Pence and Carly Fiorina respectively as their choices for vice president of the United States of America.
The 2016 Electoral College process was dramatic all right. But it is understandable, especially when we take into account the unusualness of the primaries, the passion-driven nature of the campaigns ran by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the shocking nature of the election results, and the post-election reactions. So, it is not surprising that the electors cast their votes on December 19, 2016 in an atmosphere permeated by recent media reports accusing Russia and its president Vladimir Putin of hacking and influencing the election, accusations that some pundits construed as a last-ditch attempt by the political establishment to use the Electoral College process to prevent President-elect Donald Trump from being inaugurated on January 20, 2017 as the 45th president of the United States of America. Many people saw it as an attempt to convince electors of both parties from casting their votes against the President-elect.
 It is obvious most Americans do not like it, but the fact that the Electoral College system produced two controversial elections within two decades—2000 and 2016, says something about a need to look into its effectiveness. It is understandable then why there is widespread call from Democrats this time asking for its abolition without delay. This call is not likely to get a major resistance because it would be difficult for anyone to raise a logical argument against it at this point in time.
In fact, even Republicans and nonpartisan Americans agree that the rationality or irrationality of the Electoral College process distorts the presidential campaigns as it discourages candidates and their parties from campaigning in all the states of the country, and as it discourages them from campaigning in both the rural and the urban areas nationwide.  A deep analysis of the campaigns reveals that the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates have been writing off the more than 40 states that they either find unwinnable or impossible to loss, leaving behind a situation where it is virtually accepted by almost everyone that most states today are either traditional Republican or the traditional Democratic states. Just about ten states are considered swing states and less than half of them, such as Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia etc., have become traditional swing states.
Today, these swing states are the focus of campaigns and are viewed as the states to please, especially when it comes to presidents who are seeking reelection. That leaves major states like California, Texas, New York etc. in the cold owing to the simple fact that their colors tend to be determined well in advance of elections. The irony is that these traditional Republican Party and traditional Democratic Party states tend to be among the highest financial contributors to the campaign funds in all the elections, yet they hardly get any of the money ploughed back into their economies as campaign expenditures made in their states.
The merits and demerits of the Electoral College speak for themselves, but the peculiar thing about this process is that Donald Trump will emerge from it with a stronger mandate to govern than he would have had, had he been the winning candidate in a close Electoral vote and a close Popular Vote against the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.




Voters and their Household Income Range
Demographic
Under $30k
$30k–$50k
$50k–$100k
$100k–$200k
$200k–$250k
$250k or more
Trump
41%
42%
50%
48%
49%
48%
Clinton
53%
51%
46%
47%
48%
46%

The United States of America has been through a period of roughly thirty years of economic growth bedeviled with increasing poverty and a decline of the middle class, where most of the population has been left out of the economic expansion and development. During this period, which has been spearheaded by globalization that has produced the greatest growth of wealth in the history of humanity, there have been winners and losers. And even though the gains made by the US. economy are much higher than in previous generations, only a small portion of the population benefitted from the windfall, which explains why there has been this phenomenal rise in the number of billionaires and millionaires. For most Americans, their wages either stagnated or declined during this period, which is why many are questioning the benefits of the much-touted globalization and fair trade.
In a nutshell, the changes experienced by the US. economy during the past fifty years has been big. Unfortunately, it has not led to an improvement in the standard of living of most Americans, a failure that affected White Americans the most. It is this demographic group that experienced a higher decline in their level of income and standard of living than the other racial groups, so that the 5.2% rise in Median Income in 2015 could not dent the pent-up anger most of them were already having, a rancor that has always been directed at the political establishment.
One would expect concerted efforts by those left behind to come up with an organized resistance to the developments taking place in the economy; one would have expected non-mainstream figures with thought formations that are clear and valid to be the ones challenging the political establishment responsible for this growing economic and social disparity. But that has not been the case. In fact, much of what Americans experienced in the past were protests, and much of the protests was scattered, short-lived and not widespread. But then the 2016 race for the White House brought forth Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, two mavericks from opposite ends of the economic, political and ideological spectrums, who successfully tapped the dissatisfaction of most Americans and made the majority of these struggling people, who feel that they have been left behind due to the machinations of a rigged system, believe that they could challenge what some have been regarding over the years as an unshakable corporatocracy. This new belief in the ability of the common folk of America to force the political establishment to carry out changes that would benefit all the citizens of the USA got transformed into a generalized rage during the election campaigns. In fact, the rage was seen in all the groups in America. White Americans, especially White males, expressed this rage the most and in a targeted manner, so that they voted to power the man who understand their rage the most and tapped it in such a manner that they did not feel they were being taken advantage of.
As a matter of fact, when Donald Trump kicked off his bid for the presidency and when he started sparring with the other sixteen Republican aspirants in the primaries, many Americans viewed him as a clown who would be fettered and rendered irrelevant. But he proved his detractors wrong.  He evolved all right, but he did not shake off his clownish approach, which with the ordinariness of the other Republican candidates, made the Republican primaries interesting not for their substantiated content, but for their failures to address pertinent issues. In fact, none of the candidates came out with policies that were clearly spelt out. Yet Donald Trump distinguished himself from his Republican competitors, emerged as the winner, and then went on to win the Presidential Election on the back of the substantive support he got from mostly White Americans, a phenomenon CNN’s political commentator called “White lash” on the night of the November 8, 2016, after it dawned on him that Donald Trump had just won the Presidential Election.
Filmmaker Michael Moore was even more insightful and framed it a lot better when hardly a month before election day, he told a group of CNBC panelists that Donald Trump’s supporters see the Republican nominee "as their human Molotov cocktail…not because they agree with him…but because of the opportunity to use him, to just whip him into the system and blow it up." He was right. Some would say that Van Jones was right too.
When we pry deeper into why Donald Trump pulled off the biggest upset in the history of Presidential Elections in the United States of America, we can see that in his so-called clownish ways, he courted support from the electorate in a strategic manner that could be considered ingenious. Yes, on November 08, 2016, a lot of White Americans from poor, working class, middleclass backgrounds etc., White Americans of mostly of traditional families who were not happy with the socio-economic and political direction the country was taking, voted the billionaire and political novice to power in key states that determined he won the Electoral vote over Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee that almost everyone thought was going to win. Donald Trump, the maverick outsider in the 2016 Presidential Election won by appealing to the feelings of dissatisfied voters. He did so by tapping their grievances in a manner that had not been seen before, and he carried out his engagement with these people in strategic states that most Democratic Party strategists took for granted or didn’t pay enough attention to.
The leadership in the US. political establishment cannot be accused of not having the gut-level grasp of the mood in the country, especially among minorities and those left behind by economic developments in the country over the past three decades. But what they can be accused of is for failing to respond appropriately to the growing distress caused by their internal policies and the workings of the international market. In fact, while the number of Americans in the lower class has been increasing over the years, the rate of decrease in income and/or increase in the rate of poverty has been highest among White Americans than among other racial groups in the country. And this has been mostly in the Southeast and the Rustbelt (areas of the Northeastern and Midwestern US that are characterized by declining industries, aging factories, and a falling population) ―which begins in the state of New York and stretches westward through Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, and ending in northern Illinois, eastern Iowa, and southeastern Wisconsin.
However, it is particularly in the Rustbelt―the part of the American Midwest that for decades voted the Democratic Party due to the special alliance forged between organized labor and the Democratic Party since the Great Depression, an alliance that persists today, though in a moribund state due to the deindustrialization that has been going on in the area for the past three decades―that Donald dealt a death-blow to Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party and the political establishment as a whole. In this part of the country that not long ago was the cradle of the middle class, but which is now haunted by shuttered factories, crumbling roads and bridges, hollowed out downtowns, crime-ridden and dying cities, Donald Trump and his campaign successfully galvanized former members and supporters of the Democratic Party and organized labor, and then convinced them and won their votes in the 2016 election. This departure of former members of organized labor and the Democratic Party to the Trump camp, and maybe to the Republican Party, may end up as a permanent divorce between these Midwestern states and the Democratic Party. Worthy of special note is the fact that Catholicism is dominant in these Rustbelt States. Cognizance should also be taken of the fact that the Germanic (ethnic Germans, ethnic Dutch and Scandinavians) populations form the absolute majority in these Rustbelt states.
While the Rustbelt happens to encompass states that are especially known for their tradition of voting Democrats, the Southeast has traditionally voted Republican. All Donald Trump needed to do in these Southeastern states was to consolidate their vote. And he did a brilliant job doing that, so that even the wavering North Carolina that voted the Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election, voted Republican in 2016.
It is true most of Donald Trump’s supporters were angry, but they had every reason to be. After all, they were the group affected the most by:
·         the loss of homes due to foreclosures following the 2008 recession,
·         the loss of jobs due to the transfer of manufacturing jobs overseas or abroad, and the loss of jobs due to the effects of the recession,
·         stagnation in the minimum wage due to the availability of cheap labor provided by both legal and illegal immigrants,
·         rising professionalism, increasing automation and the growing technological orientation of the American economy, changes that are taking place mostly in urban areas known for harboring most of America’s minority racial groups, hence making it possible for a higher proportion of these minorities to become more adaptive to the changing economy than most White Americans who abound mostly in the suburbs, countryside and small towns of rural America.




Median Household Income by State 
Rank
State
2014
2010
2009
2007
2000
1
$70,004
$69,272
$70,545
$87,080
$72,372
2
$69,825
$68,342
$70,378
$84,035
$70,169
3
$67,458
$67,034
$71,595
$90,967
$81,972
4
$65,753
$66,953
$68,460
$81,333
$67,639
$65,124
$63,098
$57,214
$52,746
$50,681
5
$64,859
$62,081
$61,401
$59,365
$56,236
6
$64,712
$63,557
$62,731
$61,369
$60,489
7
$62,881
$61,330
$58,233
$59,562
$55,108
8
$62,814
$59,290
$57,936
$97,317
-[1]
9
$61,814
$58,931
$57,021
$59,948
$53,770
10
$60,287
$69,860
$79,989
$95,470
$90,214
11
$57,954
$58,548
$60,078
$85,591
$73,439
12
$57,835
$54,616
$52,288
$50,082
$50,011
13
$56,322
$55,430
$56,993
$55,212
$54,039
14
$55,869
$55,117
$56,633
$55,109
$55,179
15
$55,387
$54,659
$56,033
$53,514
$48,201
16
$55,246
$54,119
$55,701
$53,914
$52,003
17
$53,636
$53,966
$56,235
$54,124
$49,280
18
$53,234
$53,341
$56,361
$55,062
$50,819
19
$52,776
$52,664
$53,207
$51,731
$47,227
20
$51,704
$51,618
$52,104
$49,907
$51,622
$50,502
$50,221
$52,029
$50,740
-
21
$50,395
$49,993
$52,094
$50,578
$48,874
22
$50,296
$49,520
$50,713
$48,576
$47,791
23
$50,228
$48,745
$50,958
$49,889
$46,729
24
$49,427
$48,457
$50,169
$48,730
$45,485
25
$49,392
$48,259
$50,043
$47,548
$43,425
26
$48,964
$48,044
$48,980
$47,292
$47,489
27
$48,927
$47,827
$45,685
$43,753
$43,753
28
$48,321
$47,817
$50,177
$47,451
$44,264
29
$46,816
$47,590
$50,861
$49,136
$46,841
30
$46,709
$47,357
$49,693
$47,085
$48,126
31
$46,438
$45,734
$46,581
$45,888
$45,040
32
$46,033
$45,424
$47,966
$47,448
$44,806
33
$46,007
$45,395
$47,988
$46,597
$45,837
34
$45,981
$45,255
$48,591
$47,950
$47,064
35
$45,749
$45,229
$46,867
$45,114
$44,651
36
$45,247
$45,043
$46,032
$43,424
$44,624
37
$44,299
$44,926
$47,576
$46,253
$46,395
38
$44,222
$44,736
$47,778
$47,804
$44,448
39
$43,916
$43,674
$46,549
$44,670
$42,061
40
$43,341
$43,028
$43,508
$41,452
$40,827
41
$43,225
$42,492
$43,733
$40,926
$37,943
42
$42,367
$42,442
$44,625
$43,329
$40,822
43
$41,963
$42,322
$43,654
$43,531
$38,629
44
$41,734
$41,725
$43,614
$42,367
$40,676
45
$41,693
$41,664
$42,822
$41,567
$40,001
46
$41,415
$40,489
$42,666
$40,554
$38,473
47
$41,141
$40,072
$41,538
$40,267
$38,466
$38,973
-
-
-
-
48
$38,758
$37,823
$38,815
$38,134
$37,420
49
$38,482
$37,435
$37,989
$37,060
$37,227
50
$36,919
$36,646
$37,790
$36,338
$35,261
$30,921
-
-
-
-
$23,171
-
-
-
-
$23,168
-
-
-
-
-
$34,254[3]
-
-
$17,018[4]

Now, we have a clearer picture of why most White Americans, especially those white males who still feel that everything has been taken away from them, used Donald Trump as their proverbial “Human Molotov Cocktail”, per Michael Moore. They were truly furious about everything. They blame the system or the institutions, more especially the last two presidencies—they fault the previous President George W. Bush, the brother of John Ellis "Jeb" Bush Sr. whom they rejected in the primaries in a resounding manner in favor of Donald Trump; they hold the administration of the outgoing President Barack Obama  responsible as well—for working against them in favor of the privileged minority in the country, the club of millionaires and billionaires as many like to call these economic elites.
It is not an understatement to say that a substantial portion of what the mainstream media dubbed “Angry White Americans” who voted for Donald Trump felt deeply that they were losing their country because “the elites” were taking it away from them. And to them, the millionaire Hillary Clinton stood as the poster child of the political establishment far more than the billionaire Donald Trump. After all, didn’t Donald Trump prove earlier that he had what it takes to turn the Rustbelt around during a Detroit Economic Club meeting where he spelt it out to Ford Motor executives in no uncertain terms that their plan to close factories in Detroit, Michigan and move them to Mexico, would be met by a 35% tax on the Ford cars that would be manufactured in the Latin-American country, and then shipped back to the United States of America, which would make them overpriced in the USA for anybody to buy?  Yes, Donald Trump said that, and it was an amazing feat and music to the ears of the people of the Rustbelt states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
No politician of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party ever confronted executives of Corporate America in such a fearless manner before. And apparently, the Ford Motor executives blinked. They budged all right and the factories they were planning to move to Mexico are going to stay in the states they are located in for the foreseeable future. In fact, reports from CNN and other mainstream media confirmed Ford’s press report on January 04, 2017 stating that the Ford Automobile company had just cancelled plans to build a $1.6 billion factory in Mexico, and that the company would invest $700 million in Michigan instead, which would result in the creation of 700 new U.S. jobs.  As if to vindicate the Michigan population for voting Donald Trump to power, Ford’s CEO Mark Fields stated that the investment is a "vote of confidence" in the pro-business environment that Donald Trump created in the country.
The Ford case shows that the president-elect kept up his pressure on Ford Automobile, and in a way, it paid off in the long run since the $700 million that Ford is going to invest will go to the Flat Rock plant in Michigan, for the purpose of producing more electric and self-driving cars. The fact that the Ford CEO told CNN's Poppy Harlow in an exclusive interview that: “We didn't cut a deal with Trump. We did it for our business.”, goes to confirm the new view that Ford is convinced electrified vehicles are going to outsell gas-powered vehicles within the next 15 years, and so wants to lead in that direction.
The Ford turn around and the fact that the president-elect has accomplished a similar feat with Carrier, the Farmington, Connecticut-based brand of United Technologies Corporation Building & Industrial Systems, which is involved in manufacturing and distributing heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, as well as commercial refrigeration and food service equipment, reflects the growing business confidence in the country and the positive expectation businesses have of Donald Trump when he gets sworn in as the 45th president of the United States of America on January 20, 2017. He has just saved 1,100 jobs that Carrier was about to move to Mexico.
True Trump’s opponents claim the early December deal with Carrier involved tax incentives to the company as an enticement for it to stay put in the USA, which in their opinion is a bad way of saving jobs. However, to those whose jobs have been saved, and to Trump’s supporters in particular, the opponents of the Carrier deal are nothing more than detractors that harbor ill-feelings against a man who is an effective deal-maker with the proven leadership skills to turn things around even in near-impossible situations like in the cases of  the Ford and the Carrier corporations.

The Major Industries in the States of the USA
GDP Per Capita of States in the USA

US. GDP Per Capita

GDP Growth by State, 2015: IV-2016: I

Yes, Donald Trump promised transformative changes to America’s shrinking middle class and his words were deeply taken to heart by the voters of the Rustbelt states, the part of the country where the middle class got hit the hardest by the 2008 recession that began under the presidency of George Bush. Barack Obama tried his best to revive this middle class, but it wasn’t enough, especially in these Rustbelt states.
Donald Trump’s galvanization of underprivileged White Americans, especially in the Southeast and Rustbelt, White Americans who think that “They have been cut off from the American Pie”, White Americans who are mostly non-Anglo-Saxon or are not of English descent, contributed enormously to his strength in winning this election. And based on how things turn out in the next four years, this group of the electorate will come in handy in the next presidential election in 2020. Donald Trump can count on their future loyalty because he has successfully he has brought with him a new base into the political map of the country, a base of poor White Americans who decades ago worked in states that were driving the American economy forward, poor White Americans who have seen deindustrialization reduce their economic strength and political importance in the past decades, so that many of them  withdrew from America’s electoral process, convinced that their voices were not being heard.
Now, these underprivileged voters of the Rustbelt and Southeast feel their votes made a difference in the 2016 Presidential Election and brought Donald Trump to power, a brazen fellow who has promised to shatter any illusions the political establishment could still be having of maintaining the status quo; they feel their votes will make a difference in future elections; they feel Donald Trump will not betray them like the elites of the establishment did before. After all, these elites who ruined their lives hate Donald Trump too; after all Corporate America that let them down hates the maverick billionaire; after all, Wall Street that triggered the 2008 recession looks down on Donald Trump too. So, the man who is about to become the 45th president of the United States of America will always need their votes not only in his fight against the corporatocracy, but also against the career politicians and the mainstream media that loved him before, made a celebrity out of him, and then turned around and now hates him.
The biggest development from the 2016 Presidential Election is the fact that these newly-empowered voters who carried Donald Trump into the White House with their votes do not intend to fall back into the state of political lethargy that for decades convinced politicians to write them off so easily. Now they are relevant and their relevancy would be sought by politicians in future campaigns. Their performance has shown that voters, irrespective of the states they are in, should not be taken for granted. Their brethren in other states are likely to revolt too, increasing the number of swing states, so that future campaigns will become nationwide and make future elections a lot more competitive and difficult to predict. The era of the traditional swing states is over. Many more states are going to be up for grasp, and the new reality could be that the era of traditional Democratic Party states and traditional Republican Party states could be over for all we know.




The Swing States of the 2016 Presidential Election

Margin of victory of States in Presidential Elections (1992-2008)
         R >20
         R 10–20
         R 3–10
         R <3 to D <3
         D 3–10
         D 10–20
         D >20
The blue states are traditionally safe for the Democratic Party; the red states are traditionally safe for the Republican Party, and grey states are traditionally regarded as the swing states.

Now, there are enough facts to back up the new reality—a swell in the number of swing states. This new development means that the deciders of future elections will comprise the following states: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The expansion in the number of swing states promises the people robust political campaigns that will illuminate the American political scene for decades to come and that will force the established political parties to either adapt or be made less relevant by new political forces that will fill the vacuum in the years to come.