Schwab: Maybe Trump was right about a rigged election after all

By Sid Schwab

In med school some classmates and I went trick-or-treating to homes of professors. After inviting us in, one insisted we hear a recording of him telling a joke. With sound effects! Shortened and cleaned up, it went like this: Shipwreck. Captain, pretty young wife, handsome young sailor paddle to uninhabited island. Captain orders rotating watch in nearby tree. Young man goes first. Says, “One o’clock and all’s well,” looks down and says, “Stop making love down there.” Repetitively: “Two o’clock …” etc. Captain is puzzled, but when he takes his turn he says, “Six o’clock and all’s well … By golly, it does look like they’re making love down there.”

Donald Trump and his henchfolk kept saying, “Stop rigging the election down there,” and now others are saying, by golly, it does look like it was rigged. Nice one, Donald. I mean, if a person knew the election was going to be swung in his favor, how useful would it be to get the other side to think it was an illusion?

We know Russia was messing with our election and did so with the knowledge of the Trump campaign. Russia’s online propaganda influence on our political discourse is ongoing and growing. James Comey might have provided advance information to team Trump. So is it beyond imaging that the Donald and his merry band of deplorables knew the fix was in, maybe had a hand in it? Might that explain Trump’s repetitive warnings of rigging, as an attempt to inoculate himself against Democrats looking into malfeasance?

Well, sure, demands for recounts can be seen as nothing more than sour grapes or, as Donald Trump, who has the best words, described it, “Sad.” But there’s no historical precedent for the winner of electoral votes losing the popular vote by such a yuge margin. Moreover, some experts concluded there’s statistical suggestion of tampering (Palmer Report: Indeed, even before the audit, four precincts across Wisconsin “discovered” they’d tallied more votes for Trump than the total number of people who voted. An error, they said. Same mistake in each precinct. Well, these things happen.

Recounts detect certain kinds of errors. Can they, without analyzing each machine, uncover hacking of voting software? Given their other meddling and the steady stream of revelations of coziness with the Trump campaign, is it inconceivable that Russian hackers accomplished what many have claimed, since the advent of digital voting equipment, is relatively easy?

Beyond speculation, what about known rigging in plain sight, via minority-voter suppression laws produced in red states since the Supreme Court neutered the Voting Rights Act. How much did they tilt the election? Possibly by millions of votes. ( More than one way to make America great, right?

So there’ll be a watered-down recount. I doubt it’ll turn up much, or that anything will change if it does. It sure would be entertaining, though. There’s not enough popcorn in all of Iowa. Nor antacids in my medicine cabinet.

Meanwhile, I’m certain we all agree: Let’s stop calling Trump’s victory “the will of the people,” or a “mandate.” Because, despite Trump’s latest spectacular lie (Twitter:, “the people” chose Hillary Clinton by over 2.5 million non-suppressed votes. Note to Donald: if you claim millions voted illegally AND call the recount “nonsense,” you should also say “oops.” And when you sue to stop the recounts, the rest of us say “hmmm….”)

While awaiting the outcome, here’s a thought experiment: Imagine the official Republican reaction if a Democratic president-elect had holdings around the world and had already pressured Argentina and Turkey to make self-enriching deals? What if she’d summoned media people before a golden throne, berated their coverage of her, made implicit threat and demanded an end to unflattering photos? Would they rage about unambiguous attacks on the First Amendment as they had about imaginary attacks on the Second? Would they call a popular vote win/electoral vote loss “the will of the people” if it were their candidate? Would they “get over it”? Ever? Finally, predict Foxolimjonsian responses if her family-business-managing daughter sat in on the president-elect’s conversations with foreign leaders; or if she’d selected the wealthiest administration in history, including Wall Street billionaires and lobbyists, after promising to “drain the swamp.”

I know: tough assignment. Take your time. And your answers must fit on a bumper sticker.

Email Sid Schwab at

Talk to us

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Wednesday, May 25

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Fire destroyed much of the town of Malden, Washington in 2020 after a tree reportedly snapped and fell into power lines operated by Avista. (AP Photo/Jed Conklin, file)
Editorial: Return of wildfire season brings new concern

Utilities in the state will need to pay more attention to risks to powerlines from wind and trees.

It’s not too late to reverse threats to our existence

In recent weeks I’ve met and engaged with some brilliant individuals who’ve… Continue reading

Prayer on high school field violates church-state separation

This so-called “freedom of speech” case brought to the U.S. Supreme Court… Continue reading

Not all rights are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution

A real flashpoint, Justice Samuel Alito, Sen. Lindsey Graham and others contend… Continue reading

Comment: Jan. 6 riot demands more than six hearings

Summarizing its work over two weeks could allow the House panel’s crucial work to be quickly forgotten.

Comment: At Constitution’s writing abortion was left to women

Those drafting the Constitution were largely content to have women quietly take care of the matter.

Comment: If Democrats want to win they have to simplify

For example, broad tax reform won’t fly, but they might find support for a smaller scale proposal.

Ballots for Tuesday's election are due by 8 p.m. (Sue Misao / The Herald)
Editorial: New districts, more make for vital election season

Voters should check to see if they’re in a new district and prepare for consequential elections.

Most Read