Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Thursday, October 27, 2016

I'm back to predicting a Trump win

You read that right. I think Donnie will do it.

Why am I predicting that Trump will pull off the most upsetting upset in history, even though all of the pundits and poll-aggregators suggest otherwise?

I just can't shake my long-held instinct to grant likelihood to the worst-case scenario. Life has taught me this one great lesson: The only ism that will never let you down is pessimism. Never tell yourself that this is the year when Lucy will let you kick that football: You'll just end up flat on your back, as ever before.

(Hm. Does the younger generation even get that reference?)

Against all reason, and in the face of a staggering array of Trumpian scandals and disasters, the polls are tightening.
Who's going to win? At the moment the most reliable poll in recent history is giving a slight edge to the guy who fires up fanatics for free.

That's Donald Trump, and as of Saturday the Investors Business Daily/TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence Poll had him leading Hillary Clinton by two points in a four-way race. (Check the RealClearPolitics daily summaries of the latest polls here.)

That lead is within the margin of error of course, but it's fascinating that Trump could still be in contention after a couple of what looked like the worst weeks in history.

To find out why, I put in a call to Raghavan Mayur. He's the president of Ramsey-based Technometrica, the company that does the actual polling for Investor's Business Daily.

The IBD/TIPP tracking poll was rated as "the most accurate" in the 2012 race by the New York Times. While other polls had Republican Mitt Romney up by several points going into the election, Mayur's poll correctly showed Obama ahead.
The Saturday IBD/TIPP poll had Clinton tied with Trump in a two-way race – which this isn't - but behind two points in a four-way race – which this is.
That means Clinton loses more voters to third-party candidates than Trump.

"I think that perhaps these are people who believe Trump is not acceptable," he said. "If you pitch Clinton vs. Trump alone, they vote for Clinton. But when they have options they will abandon her."

Mayur's poll isn't the only one released over the past few days that had Trump ahead when Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein were factored in.

Another poll also had Trump ahead and yet another had the race in a dead heat.

Only one had Clinton winning a four-way race.
What, then, was the cause of the polls favoring Clinton? From 538:
Another potential issue is partisan nonresponse bias, the possible tendency of voters not to respond to surveys during periods of poor news coverage for their candidate, which can potentially exaggerate swings in the polls. I’m personally somewhat agnostic about how serious a problem this is and whether there are good ways to adjust for it. But certainly, when a candidate has several weeks in a row of very negative coverage, you shouldn’t necessarily assume the polls conducted during that period represent the “new normal” in the race.
Dems keep repeating the "Grab 'em by the pussy" tape, as though that settles that. But the problem with video evidence is that familiarity can breed acceptance.

Consider the video of Rodney King's beating. The sight had tremendous shock value during the first dozen or so viewings, but after two or three dozen viewings, the shock wore off -- and everyone over the age of 40 can recall the result. Or consider the Zapruder film: When first shown on television, the film clearly presented evidence of a shot from the front. But after seeing the footage a zillion times, people found ways to rationalize away the evidence of their eyes.

In other words, Dems made a mistake by beating "pussy" to death.

We've already looked at the national head-to-head race. Now let's look at the states.

TPM's poll aggregation service has Ohio returning to the Republican camp. has both Arizona and Ohio back in pink. All polls have Trump and Clinton running neck-and-neck in Florida; Bloomberg puts Trump ahead by two in a four-way race in that state.

(Do you see a point to the head-to-head polls? Me neither.)

I never thought that Trump would lose Florida. Election-rigging seems more likely in that state than in any other. Roger Stone knows whose palms are the most grease-able.

Trump's strategy of crying "It's all rigged!" was quite beautiful -- downright elegant. The Democrats fell for his trap. In unison, from Obama on down, they all screamed the same message: Rigging is impossible.

It isn't. It never was.

Voter impersonation, the great Republican bugaboo, is a scarecrow designed to justify the intimidation of black voters. We all know this. But computerized election fraud is a different matter. I've never been convinced that the actual counting of our vote is inviolate and immaculate.

When Putin's hackers tap into the master tabulating computers -- the "mother machines," as Mrs. Kerry called them -- the Dems won't be able to say: "Hey, that's mighty suspicious." After all, the Dems kept assuring us that rigging is impossible.

In these circumstances, even a pronouncement from the intelligence community will not be seen as definitive. If the NSA were to say "Russia hacked the election in Florida," the right will scream that the NSA is part of the Great Clinton Conspiracy.

So: That's Arizona, Ohio and (in my opinion) Florida, back in the Trump column -- all in surprisingly short order. By my calculations, the electoral vote score stands at Clinton 294, Trump 244.

Donnie still needs to flip at least two states.

North Carolina seems likely to topple; the race is close there. Giving Trump the 15 votes in that state would still leave Clinton ahead, but just barely: She would have 279 votes to the Donald's 259.

Pennsylvania? I admit: It seems unlikely.


But, but, but...

Do you remember where we were just a short while ago? Right after the conventions, after Trump's disastrous attempts to smear the Khan family? Hillary's lead ballooned, and all of the really smart smarties declared the race over. The talk turned to the down-ballot effect of a Clinton victory. Yet even as  the Dems crowed and cooed and did their collective happy dance, Hillary's lead slipped away. It slipped slowly -- but not that slowly.

At the time, and before everyone else, I warned my readers about this slippage. People called me crazy. Then things got really tight, and my "craziness" seemed prophetic. 

It's happening again, folks: We had debates and disaster for Donnie. Dems grew cocky. And now, Trump is surging back.

(The infuriating rise in Obamacare premiums sure didn't help.)

So I'm back to predicting a Trump victory on November 28. Please forgive my foolish lapse into optimism. It was temporary. 

If my prediction of a Trump victory is wrong, I'll receive an egg facial on election day. Fine. In my present financial straits, I cannot refuse free food. I'll take mine scrambled if you please, with a little salsa and cheese.

Former congressman Joe Walsh says that he'll literally take up arms against the United States if Trump loses.
For the record, Walsh’s apparent plan to form a band of individuals to take up arms against the lawfully elected leader of the United States most likely meets the legal definition of treason. Under federal law, “whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.”
That's just what I've been saying for ages now: The only way to tame our increasingly paranoid right is to show them that rebellion has consequences. If Walsh really does take up the "musket" (to use his terminology), the government should arrest him for treason and put him behind bars. The "martyrdom" of a Joe Walsh will teach a much-needed lesson to the rest of these scoundrels.

Walsh seems to think that his traitorous views are more popular than they really are. That's the problem with the way news travels in the modern world: Social media has replaced mainstream media. Personalized information has replaced shared information. This new system sequesters us into ideological ghettos. We convince ourselves that the majority of our fellow citizens think as we think.

During the primaries, a small faction of dimwitted millennials decided that all of America was ready to hoist the red flag and vote for a self-avowed socialist. And now, on the opposite side of the political spectrum, a jackass like Walsh visualizes himself as the leader of an insurrectionist army.

Both the left and the right need to understand one basic point: The hallucinations shared by you and your buddies do not necessarily reflect the feelings of 300 million other Americans.
I hate to say it but I agree with you. At the height of her 10 points lead I got that feeling of it's all a mirage.
I recall linking to the other polls you are citing now in the comments section of a prior article of yours. One rationalization being used is by the pollsters is if you average out the polls they still show Hillary Clinton leading by 5 to 6 points.

However, NO MORE POLLS that leave out the 3rd and 4th Candidates, who I believe are siphoning from Hillary Clinton more so than Donald Trump by a wide margin.

The media in LA and perhaps nationally is floating out that Donald Trump is going all out on the campaign trail until election day while Hillary Clinton has 42 fundraisers scheduled. That is really damaging and it DOES affect some voters in a negative way towards Hillary Clinton, especially the ones most likely to vote for Johnson or Stein.

We could have a situation where the combined vote for Johnson, Stein and Clinton beats Trump by 5% to 10%, but Trump wins because he has no small candidate siphoning votes from him. I bet this is the plan they are counting on.

And Pennsylvania is more for Trump than Ohio, so if Trump gets Ohio, he most likely gets Pennsylvania as well and it could leetch into Michigan as well.
I agree that as time passes the Trump tapes may matter less. The other thing that may be tightening the polls is the religious right's position that whomever gets to choose the supreme court over the next four to eight years could impact decisions for the next 30 years.
So the battle cry is, Trump may be worse than Hillary Clinton, but he will at least pick conservative judges. Hillary Clinton NEEDS to make a POTTY Mouth tape to get the religious conservatives to back off a bit.
Hillary Clinton needs to release tape of herself exercising. How can she be a champion of healthcare if she is incapable of exercising?
"We convince ourselves that the majority of our fellow citizens think as we think."

So true.

And yet, outside of my own usual bubble, I heard a coworker complain he let the owner of a pizzeria he frequents know he was voting for Hillary (when pressed by the owner who asked him) and was then chagrined when the owner loudly agreed and went on a bellowing anti-Trump rant. I think there's a begrudging vote for Hillary from nonpolitical folk out there. Not begrudging exactly. More of a dutiful civic chore from the staunchly apolitical, but ordinary citizen.

Might we consider this embarrassed Everyman's choice a ray of hope?

Well, I live in Pennsylvania and while the flyover parts may be solid Trump supporters, the two large cities and my not so little college town appear to be all Clinton. This is where majority of Pennsylvanians live, and we went for Obama both times. This is not to say that I think PA is a lock for Clinton, because I still have doubts about that. Only that, in the last few weeks, in my town, the Clinton signs have popped up all over the place, even in some areas outside of town that I didn't expect. Of course, there are some Trump signs as well, but they are vastly outnumbered by the Clinton signs, which wasn't the case just a month ago. I realize this isn't a solid indicator of how people are going to vote, and I have seen a few Johnson signs as well (no Stein though, which surprises me, since my college town leans heavily liberal (unlike all the surrounding area). Anyway, we shall see, and like you Joseph, I'm not optimistic despite what I'm seeing around here (I do have doubts Trump will win PA, but it could be quite close by election day......we'll see).

Allesandro......I think you are the only person that cares about this Clinton exercising thing. At least, you are the only person I've seen anywhere that keeps bringing it up. When has this ever been an issue for a Presidential candidate? Never in my lifetime. I think you aren't paying attention to Joseph's comments that your views do not necessarily reflect the views of the vast majority of Americans. I have many liberal friends, some who are considering voting 3rd party, and I can tell you that not a single on of them have mentioned her lack of exercise or anything related to that. I've also not seen anything in articles, on Facebook (even from conservatives I know), nothing.
the Trump 'pussy tape' was released 3 weeks too early

the Clinton Foundation wikileaks that got a big write up in the Washington Post today won't help.the term Bill Clinton incorporated is easy to remember

Clinton and Trump are both bad. This one will be a 'who stinks the least' election.
If it's obvious that the MSM is trying to help Clinton in so many ways-why not also 'massage their polls' seems obvious to me
Carol Marin: Among the things you've said -- and some of them are fairly explosive: "We may have to shed blood to preserve our freedoms. Our side doesn't understand that we are at war. We need a movement in this state that will scare Republicans and Democrats." What are you saying?

Joe Walsh: We are about $100 trillion in debt when you add up our Medicare and Social Security liabilities. There will be no government for our kids and our grandkids. This is a serious time. My side -- the side that believes in freedom and limited government; the Republican Party -- doesn't sufficiently see that we're at war. Thomas Jefferson –-again not that long ago, Carol -- said that the tree of liberty may need to be fertilized with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Carol Marin: one really fast question with a fast answer. Would you leave the Republican Party to run as an independent?

Joe Walsh: Gosh no and I hope not

Carol Marin: Joe Walsh thank you very much for joining us.
I'd like to go "around behind the barn" with whoever it was that shoved the alleged inevitability of Hillary Clinton down our throats. What were they thinking? It wasn't about the good of the country, that's for sure. It wasn't even about the good of the party.
I get it. Joseph is pranking all of us. How do I know? Because he said November 28th. HahahaLOL.
I'm convinced that Clinton will "walk it". Joseph's post is a way to scare any lazy liberal back-sliders, who think it's a done deal, into getting themselves to the polls on 8 Nov.

By the way, Joseph wrote, "During the primaries, a small faction of dimwitted millennials decided that all of America was ready to hoist the red flag and vote for a self-avowed socialist. "
Fact check: Bernie Sanders is not a "self-avowed socialist" he is a self-avowed Democratic Socialist. Red flags not required. There was far more than "a small faction" in Bernie's corner, during the primaries, and they were not all "dimwitted millennials" - as it happens I fit neither description, and I was one of his millions of supporters, and had been a fan of his long before he became a candidate in this election. Joseph, you really do yourself no favours in your continued nastiness about Senator Bernie Sanders. You must still be suffering from symptoms related to that old U.S. McCarthy-related red-scare disease - alternatively that other common U.S. blight on-line: exaggeration and hyperbole.
I can't forget what you said a while back, Joe, about how absolutely sure Trump's inner circle were that they would win. Every time I see Trump spread FUD about "rigging the election" and how he is "really ahead everywhere," I can't help think he is saying these things so he can point back to them after he "wins" (by rigging the election). I can't help but think he is attacking the sanctity of our elections to maneuver the left into contradicting him, and attacking him for "undermining faith in the system," which will check mate them if they try to complain after Trump steals the election.

They're not even trying to hide it. They're doing it right in plain sight for everyone to see. Whether the vote repression measures in several states, or the plans they are making for mass "poll watching" on election day, they are letting us know exactly what they plan to do.

So, yeah, I can't help but worry that this thing is far from a done deal.
Oh, I forgot to add: I can't forget that Trump has surrounded himself with an entire staff of deeply disreputable people, and you know there isn't an ounce of compunction among them. And I can't forget that Trump has practically encouraged his own followers to cheat - making sarcastic comments about how "maybe you should vote several times ... nah! I would never suggest that!" while bitching about Democrats "in certain areas" doing (he claims without evidence) "the same thing."

I think their plan to win the election *all along* has been to steal it. I think they will make a more brazen attempt in more states than anyone has before. And I think the only reason Trump started to show real signs of anxiety during the past month was due to concern that it would be harder for him to steal the election if polls show him down by 15 points in every important state. With the polls tightening, he can relax and be confident that it will be easy for him to explain away a 10- or 12-point gap between what the polls show and what the results turn out to be.

In fact, when the polls completely fail to match the outcome, it will just "prove" (Trump will say) all his conspiracy theories: The media is rigged, he had a lead all along, blah blah blah.

I pray to god I'm wrong.
I've come across a couple of good articles that go a long way to explaining Trump's appeal, especially to the poor and uneducated. It seems to be a combination of Hillary-hate speech (the demonization is particularly effective and persistent) and the success of libertarian economic lies. See here and here.

PS. I'm also impressed with the success of the Hillary hate program. Here in Oz (supposedly an educated and politically aware nation) the vilification of Hillary Clinton is remarkable. The emails, Clinton Foundation -- everything -- is accepted wisdom to many people. And if you try refuting those ideas then you get the same mindless hostility that comes from rusted on Sanders supporters. It seems that hate programs work.
I think you will be pleasantly relived the day after November 8th. Women everywhere are clip-clopping their nasty little feet right down to the polls.
Gus, I may be the only bringing up the exercise issue, but does that make me wrong? I can actually point to over a half dozen articles I have written on DailyPUMA about this campaign that the media picked up on afterwards. It's actually becoming comical how many articles from DailyPUMA precede the date where it became a mainstream issue.

Trump is using the exercise card right now as we speak, stating he is doing 2 and 3 stops a day until election day while Hillary Clinton has planned 42 fundraisers. Ironically, it is those fundraisers that may be why there are so many Clinton signs sprouting up in Pennsylvania.

If you go to and simply read the main headline, and then go to MSNBC RSS feed, they literally have the same headline meme as DailyPUMA about the Polls, but a few hours after DailyPUMA's was written. Not sure why you feel the need to discredit me, I want Hillary Clinton to win and just one interview of her actually doing a legitimate workout in a gym like atmosphere would win over many millennials.
At some point, Debt to the Fed needs to be frozen, no more interest rate charges for overburdened consumers, just pay back the principal. Actually we have passed that point.
Putin said today that Russia has no favourite in the US election, and he suggested that claims that Russia is meddling portray the US as if it were a banana republic. He then said that Trump represents ordinary people and portrays himself as an ordinary bloke who criticises those who have been in power for decades. The BBC painted that as if it were praise for Trump. I haven't read the original Russian, but it sounds more like high-level commentary on the whole public relations game, wrapped in a witty dig which doubtless will hit home where it's meant to.

Meanwhile the Democrats get accused of spooking the Catholic church and preparing a "Catholic spring". Jesuit Tim Kaine is a naughty man! Opus are not pleased!

Ah, psychological warfare! How soon until the phrase "American spring" is used throughout the media? And who will say they're for it?
Oh, get a grip, you lot.

The "polls-plus" model is the LEAST favorable to Clinton of the three models used, but also the least volatile.
Please take a break or stop with the gaslighting.

This election was never in doubt, and it hasn't been since 2008.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic