# I joined, and pledged support to Yes California today. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 11, 2016, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467 "2016-11-11T04:44:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 40
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/781 "2017-01-09T18:02:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Yes. I’ll wager every cent I have that the UN will not designate California a colony of the United States. Will you wager anything? I’ve already shown how this is possible. And no, 110,000 (and growing daily) of us are not about to give it up. PS, we’re not asking the UN to designate CA a colony of the US. Just saying. > [@Ravenman](#): > > … But you just can’t give it up! Sad! Was that lifted from a Trump tweet? It reads like one. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/782 "2017-01-09T18:06:26Z")
The UN doesn’t matter. The only votes that matter on the issue of Californian independence are Americans. The [timeline you gave last week](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=19891191#post19891191) makes that very clear: A) Nov 2018 - CA votes whether to vote on independence or not B) Mar 2019 - CA votes on independence (assuming the previous vote succeeded) C) (your timeline gets a little fuzzy here) - Congress and the rest of the states vote on whether to allow California to leave (again, assuming the previous vote succeeded). If 38 states (and 2/3 of Congress or convention delegates) give CA permission, through a Constitutional amendment, they can leave. D) (optional) Then they’d be free to request admission to the UN, but whether accepted or rejected, they’d still be an independent country. My question is the same as Shodan’s (from post #763): what are you going to do to win the approval of 38 states? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/783 "2017-01-09T18:11:06Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > My question is the same as Shodan’s (from post #763): what are you going to do to win the approval of 38 states? Whaaaaa!!! Trump won!! ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/784 "2017-01-09T18:11:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Except the states have not given consent, so that’s a meaningless phrase until and unless they actually do. We could re-institute slavery “with the consent of the states”. All that means is that constitution can be changes “with the consent of the states”. But the constitution, as it exists today, does not provide a path to secession. Revolution is, by definition, an extra-constitutional action. > > So yes, the constitution “could” provide for session. At present, though, it doesn’t. > > Note the word “could”, not “does”. Here’s a little factoid for you. SCOTUS is charged with defining and interpreting the US Constitution. They are the ultimate authority on it. Period. Their interpretations of the provisions of said document are legally binding on the US. If SCOTUS says it’s legal, legal if…, legal when…, or illegal, that’s it. End of story. End of appeal. It’s law. Texas v. White is a SCOTUS case. So, when you’ve got SCOTUS defining a Constitutional issue, their ruling becomes the law of the land. SCOTUS can reverse a previous decision, or further define it, or affirm it, but they are and they will remain, the ultimate authority on that issue. Period. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/785 "2017-01-09T18:15:04Z")
All SCOTUS did in Texas v White was acknowledge that it could be amended to allow a state to leave. You didn’t need SCOTUS to tell you that though. We already knew that the Constitution can be amended with ‘consent of the States’. ---
**Author:** ![Phrozen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/22d042/32.png) [@Phrozen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phrozen)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/786 "2017-01-09T18:16:36Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Here’s a little factoid for you. SCOTUS is charged with defining and interpreting the US Constitution. They are the ultimate authority on it. Period. Their interpretations of the provisions of said document are legally binding on the US. If SCOTUS says it’s legal, legal if…, legal when…, or illegal, that’s it. End of story. End of appeal. It’s law. > > Texas v. White is a SCOTUS case. > > So, when you’ve got SCOTUS defining a Constitutional issue, their ruling becomes the law of the land. SCOTUS can reverse a previous decision, or further define it, or affirm it, but they are and they will remain, the ultimate authority on that issue. Period. So because, per SCOTUS, an amendment would be required, I ask again: what is your plan for when the United States refuse to amend the Constitution to allow CalExit? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/787 "2017-01-09T18:17:40Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > All SCOTUS did in Texas v White was acknowledge that it could be amended to allow a state to leave. You didn’t need SCOTUS to tell you that though. We already knew that the Constitution can be amended with ‘consent of the States’. I guess some folks don’t know the difference between “could” and “does”. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/788 "2017-01-09T18:21:10Z")
> [@Phrozen](#): > > So because, per SCOTUS, an amendment would be required, I ask again: what is your plan for when the United States refuse to amend the Constitution to allow CalExit? Amending the Constitution is one way. It’s not the only way. Gaining approval of the states is another way. Revolution is the third (legal per Texas v. White - go figure) way. However, no revolution is planned or desired. Option one and option two will be pursued when the time comes. You know. 99% of what is coming up has been covered already. Pardon me, but I’m going to start ignoring asked and answered comments/questions. It’s not meant to offend anyone, it’s just time consuming and repetitive to go over and over the same points. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/789 "2017-01-09T18:22:01Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If CA tried to secede, as a CA resident and citizen of the U.S. I’d consider taking up arms as a potential outcome of last resort. I’d prefer that the new country of CA compensate me for my land at a price of my choosing. Now if the state trying to secede was any other than CA since I’m not a resident I’d not be as interested. It’s an interesting thought experiment. You would be willing to defend your home state from an unwelcome military incursion. And that’s understandable. You’re also OK with the choice of some other state’s decision to walk away from the U.S.A… If they’re not shooting at me, I’m not shooting at them. _Buh bye. Have a nice day_. I’m assuming that California, or some state, has gone thru the process of becoming agitated over some issue, and has already voted to leave the Union. It’s a done deal. They’ve rejected U.S. federal control over their now independent state. Posse Comitatus doesn’t allow the use of the U.S. military against U.S. citizens, unless the U.S. Congress allows it. And the Union still considers the secessionist state to be part of the U.S.A… I suppose that Union states could call out their National Guard to perform any “bullets are flying, people are dying” requirement, if they felt that strongly about the loss of California almonds? It’s my personal opinion that no one would want to be the first to shoot. And without that first exchange of fire, there would be no need to dispatch U.S. military forces to force California’s return to the Union. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/790 "2017-01-09T18:25:54Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Amending the Constitution is one way. It’s not the only way. Gaining approval of the states is another way. Revolution is the third (legal per Texas v. White - go figure) way. However, no revolution is planned or desired. Option one and option two will be pursued when the time comes. “Option one” and “option two” are just two ways of saying the same thing. “consent of the States” is just a term of art for ‘pass a Constitutional amendment’. I thought you understood that last week when your timeline spelled out getting approval of 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States, or 2/3 of a Constitutional convention’s delegates and 3/4 of the States. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/791 "2017-01-09T18:28:34Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > All SCOTUS did in Texas v White was acknowledge that it could be amended to allow a state to leave. You didn’t need SCOTUS to tell you that though. We already knew that the Constitution can be amended with ‘consent of the States’. You’re confusing 2 issues. 1. Amending the constitution. 2. Consent of the states. 2 different things. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/792 "2017-01-09T18:30:47Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You’re confusing 2 issues. > > 1. Amending the constitution. > 2. Consent of the states. > > 2 different things. No. You’re confused on this point. Those are the SAME thing. You need “consent” of 38 states because what you’d actually be doing is passing a Constitutional amendment to allow California to secede, and the threshold that the Constitution lays our for amendments being adopted is 3/4 of the states. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/793 "2017-01-09T18:35:01Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Amending the Constitution is one way. It’s not the only way. Gaining approval of the states is another way. Revolution is the third (legal per Texas v. White - go figure) way. However, no revolution is planned or desired. Option one and option two will be pursued when the time comes. The language in Texas v. White describing how a state might leave the union is _dicta_. That is, it has no precedential impact. The Court was not asked to decide if a state could secede, only whether Texas’ war bonds were valid - which required it to determine if Texas’ secession was effective based on the manner it chose. All Texas v. White tells us about the law is that a state may not unilaterally secede. [QUOTE=Chase, C.J.] It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? [/QUOTE] In any event, there is no constitutional mechanism for “gaining approval of the states” other than a constitutional amendment. We don’t have any other form of action in which the states can bind the federal government. ---
**Author:** ![Phrozen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/22d042/32.png) [@Phrozen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phrozen)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/794 "2017-01-09T18:35:53Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Amending the Constitution is one way. It’s not the only way. Gaining approval of the states is another way. Revolution is the third (legal per Texas v. White - go figure) way. However, no revolution is planned or desired. Option one and option two will be pursued when the time comes. > > You know. 99% of what is coming up has been covered already. Pardon me, but I’m going to start ignoring asked and answered comments/questions. It’s not meant to offend anyone, it’s just time consuming and repetitive to go over and over the same points. But you have decidedly **not** answered my question, despite, I feel, it being asked in a fair manned. What will you do when the Constitution is not amended? Assuming the “approval of the States” is somehow different, what will you do when that is not forthcoming? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/795 "2017-01-09T18:37:50Z")
Last week you said this: > [@Morgenstern](#): > > Now CA has 2 paths to independence. > > First…\*A member of the California federal delegation to Washington would propose an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing the State of California to withdraw from the Union. The Amendment would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate. If the Amendment passed it would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered (to satisfy the “consent of the states” requirement in Texas v. White). It would need to be accepted by at least 38 of the 50 state legislatures to be adopted. \* > > Second…\*California could call for a convention of the states (which is currently being organized to tackle other constitutional amendments as we speak) and the Amendment granting California its independence would have to be approved by 2/3 of the delegates to this convention. If it passed, the Amendment would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered and 38 of the 50 states would have to approve the measure in order for it to be adopted. > > These are the two possible paths for California’s _ **legal secession** _ from the Union\* Notice how many times you used the word “Amendment” in there? I’d highlight them for you, but I don’t want to get dinged by a mod for changing a quote. Last week those were the “2 paths to independence” for CA, according to you. Are you now saying that you’ve discovered another one in _Texas v White_ called “Consent of the States”? If so, how does this new path work? Does it still require 2/3 of the House of Representatives and Senate or 2/3 of the delegates at a Convention of the States followed by approval of 38 states? Or does this new “Consent of the states” have some new threshold? Maybe only 26 states? or 50? or 2? I’m sure it’s all explained right there in Texas v White, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/796 "2017-01-09T18:40:20Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No. You’re confused on this point. Those are the SAME thing. You need “consent” of 38 states because what you’d actually be doing is passing a Constitutional amendment to allow California to secede, and the threshold that the Constitution lays our for amendments being adopted is 3/4 of the states. Actually, there are two methods and Morgenstern laid them out in post #652: > [@Morgenstern](#): > > Now CA has 2 paths to independence. > > First…\*A member of the California federal delegation to Washington would propose an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing the State of California to withdraw from the Union. The Amendment would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate. If the Amendment passed it would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered (to satisfy the “consent of the states” requirement in Texas v. White). It would need to be accepted by at least 38 of the 50 state legislatures to be adopted. \* > > Second…\*California could call for a convention of the states (which is currently being organized to tackle other constitutional amendments as we speak) and the Amendment granting California its independence would have to be approved by 2/3 of the delegates to this convention. If it passed, the Amendment would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered and 38 of the 50 states would have to approve the measure in order for it to be adopted. > > These are the two possible paths for California’s _ **legal secession** _ from the Union\* Article 5 does lay out these two paths, either via amendment or constitutional convention whereby a new constitution could be adopted. I think the former is more likely than the latter, though even then it would be generous to say the chances were remote. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/797 "2017-01-09T18:52:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Actually, there are two methods and Morgenstern laid them out in post #652: > > Article 5 does lay out these two paths, either via amendment or constitutional convention whereby a new constitution could be adopted. I think the former is more likely than the latter, though even then it would be generous to say the chances were remote. I’d call both methods “via amendment”. Here’s the entirety of [Article V](https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html): > [@](#): > > The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. I’ve always understood that to mean that passing a new Constitutional amendment is a two-step process. The second step is always ratification by 3/4 of the States, but the first step has two options: 1. Congress (by a 2/3 super-majority in both houses) 2. a “convention for proposing amendments”, called for by 2/3 of the state legislatures. This second route of step 1 has never been utilized before, although as **Morgenstern** noted, [some people are working on it](http://www.conventionofstates.com/). I don’t think it’s accurate to call it a “constitutional convention whereby a new constitution could be adopted”. First, the convention route is called, in the constitution itself, “a convention for proposing amendments”, and second, regardless of any amendments proposed by the convention, they don’t take effect unless ratified by 3/4 of the states, same as if Congress had proposed them. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/798 "2017-01-09T18:59:38Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’ve always understood that to mean that passing a new Constitutional amendment is a two-step process. It is a 2 step process, but to get to the final step there are two separate paths. I think it’s fair to say there are two options to get to the end result. And while it hasn’t happened, it could be argued that the original 1787 convention was such an event. People proposing such a convention is [not novel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution). > [@](#): > > Each time the amendment process has been initiated since 1789, the first method has been used. All 33 amendments submitted to the states for ratification originated in the Congress. The second method, the convention option, which Alexander Hamilton (writing in The Federalist No. 85) believed would serve as a barrier “against the encroachments of the national authority”,[8] has yet to be successfully invoked, although not for lack of activity in the states. > > Three times in the 20th century, concerted efforts were undertaken by proponents of particular amendments to secure the number of applications necessary to summon an Article V Convention. These included conventions to consider amendments to (1) provide for popular election of U.S. Senators; (2) permit the states to include factors other than equality of population in drawing state legislative district boundaries; and (3) to propose an amendment requiring the U.S. budget to be balanced under most circumstances. The campaign for a popularly elected Senate is frequently credited with “prodding” the Senate to join the House of Representatives in proposing what became the Seventeenth Amendment to the states in 1912, while the latter two campaigns came very close to meeting the two-thirds threshold in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively. Once the convention is called - all bets are off, we could wind up like Canada! ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/799 "2017-01-09T19:06:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Once the convention is called - all bets are off, we could wind up like Canada! Do we agree that any amendments proposed by a convention would still need ratification by 3/4 of the states? Assuming we do, I don’t see how a convention is any more dangerous than every time Congress gets called into session. They have the same power (at least, as regards to modifying the Constitution). The only caveat that concerns me is it’s not clear how states would select their delegates to a convention. I’m assuming it would be a democratic-ish process, but there’s nothing really defined in Article V on that area. ETA: this is becoming a hijack. I apologize **Morgenstern** , back to our regularly-scheduled shenanigans. If I want to discuss the nuances of Constitutional amendments further, separate from their implications for Californian independence, I’ll start a new thread. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/800 "2017-01-09T20:09:27Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > All the political experts, all the pundits, all the polls, just about everyone with an opinion **promised** there was no way Trump would win, in fact, Hillary would win by a landslide while Trump went down in flames. > Were they correct? The fact that you didn’t listen to experts and pundits like [538.com](http://538.com), Alan Abramowitz, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, and a host of less well known names, polls like the ABC/Washington post and Investors Business Daily, or conservatives on this board cheering for a Trump victory mixed with Democrats lambasting anyone thinking of voting third party doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. Lots of people and polls showed that there were plenty of ways for Trump to win (and even more for Hillary to win but not by a landslide), but a certain set of people arbitrarily decided that they were wrong and tuned them out. I think the same people who were ignoring objective reality and ‘promising’ you that Trump couldn’t win are the ones ‘promising’ you that the US would just sit back and let CA secede without any trouble out of shame over potentially not following a written promise to the UN that even the UN doesn’t think the US made. You should be questioning the wisdom of the people making nonsense promises, but instead you’ve decided that since the only experts you listened to about the election were wrong, any other experts you hear must be wrong about anything else, and that wishful thinking wins over history and realpolitik. If you don’t believe me, read what five minutes in google turned up: > **[Election Update: The How-Full-Is-This-Glass Election](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-how-full-is-this-glass-election/)** > > Want these election updates emailed to you right when they’re published? Sign up here. Hillary Clinton, like President Obama four years ago, has spent a lot of … > **[Top Political Expert Predicts Trump Win: “This Election Keeps Me Sleepless”](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/top-political-expert-predicts-trump-win-election-keeps-me-sleepless-944403/)** > > Professor Allan Lichtman says his system points to a GOP win on Nov. 8: "On the one hand I'll be the biggest genius in the world. On the other hand, I'll be the most depressed person in the world." [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/278726-rush-limbaugh-trump-will-beat-clinton-by-landslide-proportions](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/278726-rush-limbaugh-trump-will-beat-clinton-by-landslide-proportions) > **[2016 Election Oracles: These People Predicted Trump Would Win](https://heavy.com/news/2016/11/2016-final-election-results-predictions-helmut-norpoth-abramowitz-michael-moore-nate-silver-vote-count-turn-out-electoral-college-maps-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-polls-forecasting-pennsylvania-michi/)** > > Not everyone got Clinton vs. Trump wrong. Meet the election oracles: The professors and pollsters (and Michael Moore) who predicted Donald Trump's strength in final election results. > **[Election Update: The How-Full-Is-This-Glass Election](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-how-full-is-this-glass-election/)** > > Want these election updates emailed to you right when they’re published? Sign up here. Hillary Clinton, like President Obama four years ago, has spent a lot of … [http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-campaign-bad-poll-abc-washington-post-230591](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-campaign-bad-poll-abc-washington-post-230591) [http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/301834-poll-trump-up-1-on-clinton-nationally](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/301834-poll-trump-up-1-on-clinton-nationally) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=41)