Donald Trump is visiting Connecticut tonight at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, while Hillary is visiting Greenwich on Monday for a fundraiser <read>
This provides a great opportunity to discuss a couple of points often touted in favor of the National Popular Vote.
- That presidential candidates will never campaign in Connecticut until we have a national popular vote.
- That candidates only come to Connecticut to take money out of the state.
- And apparently we would benefit from the money they would spend here.
We have long opposed, not because we are against the idea in theory, but because imposing a popular vote on our current unequal and risky state-by-state system would make presidential elections much more risky. <See our posts here>
Overall we do not think campaigning in a state or the money issue is that relevant in choosing for or against the National Popular vote. Yet, since the proponents tout it so strongly, we point out:
- Obviously a candidate is campaigning here in spite of their claims. (We also had several candidates here during the presidential primary season)
- Many of those same legislators and advocates for the National Popular Vote are arguing Trump should not come.
- Rather than bringing money to the state it may cost the Town of Fairfield $37,000 in security <read>
- Ask yourself if this visit or the visits during the primary campaign changed the minds of many who could have watched similar rallies on TV or the Internet?
- We note it is a myth that campaigns bring huge amounts of money to states where they campaign. The big money goes to media conglomerates, national headquarters staff, and consultants.
- Presumably Hillary will take some huge donations from Greenwich, where apparently financial barons live to enjoy New England and avoid NYC taxes, while threatening to leave Connecticut for some sunbelt tax haven.
- Yet the amounts are peanuts compared to the money those people spend in Connecticut. Which in-turn, is peanuts compared to their investments around the country and in offshore tax havens. In any case they would still donate that money no matter where they lived and where the candidates campaigned.
- There is a problem with money in campaigns that demands reform directly, a National Popular Vote would not change that, if anything it would make it worse creating the demand for more of those television and web political ads that we all would rather avoid.
Remember this is not a reason to be for or against the National Popular Vote. It is an example of supporters grabbing at straws to make their case.
Update 8/19/2016**********
This week Hillary Clinton campaigned in NY, a very safe state for her campaign.
