Compares 2016 and 2020 vote margins
Lee Roy Lollar showed his two sides in his November 27 letter to The Dispatch, these two sides seemingly at odds with one another. On one hand, he writes in informative detail about local matters, including his pointed and important comment on the size of the city of Columbus’ sizeable debt (somewhere between $35 and $40 million). Here he provided useful context to the small surplus the city observed this past year, surprising and pleasant though it may be. Yet he does not seem to apply the same criticism to the President he has so often championed – the same one who has run larger overall (and pre-pandemic) deficits and increased the national debt nearly as much in three years as Obama did in eight.
I have a problem with his claim of “voting irregularities.” In contrast to his comments on our city, he provides no evidence (just like the President) – because there is none as yet to point to despite the most widespread scrutiny over ballot counting in my lifetime – and I am not young.
Hilary Clinton elected not to officially challenge the election results in 2016 when Trump won in several states by far smaller margins than most of the “battleground” states exhibited in 2020 and where, again in clear contrast with 2020, Clinton won the popular vote – by a very large margin. Hilary Clinton conceded the following morning, something President Trump appears likely to never do. Despite losing that vote by twice the 2016 margin, Trump seeks to overturn certification in Pennsylvania where the Biden margin is in excess of 100,000 votes. I didn’t like the result in 2016, but I accepted it, never suspecting foul play.
In short, Mr. Lollar does not trust a margin of 8 million votes, but I am supposed to accept Trump’s 2000 vote winning margin in New Hampshire and his 13,000 vote victory in Michigan..
Some 25-30 legal challenges (I’ve lost count) lodged by the Trump legal team have provided no evidence for “irregularities.” In most cases the presiding judge, including multiple judges appointed by Trump himself, have flatly dismissed them as baseless.
The latest smackdown occurred this past Friday by a Trump-appointed Court of Appeals judge regarding Trump’s attempt to stall Pennsylvania’s election result certification. The judge stated bluntly in their dismissal, “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
If it was not already ridiculous to persist by then, it should be now.
Paul Mack
Columbus
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 40 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 40 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
