Posted by: seanmalstrom | November 2, 2016

Email: Questions about the Election

I had been hoping that you would do one more election article before next Tuesday, and you still might, but enough questions were forming in my mind that I decided to send you an email anyway. This is coming from someone who disagreed with you about the Obama elections but desperately hopes you’re right about this one.

1) Trump’s candidacy is so unusual, and his appeal so different than that of the normal politician, that conventional wisdom and traditional polling don’t necessarily apply to him. I assume you would agree with that. In terms of voting share, where do you think he will end up? If he’s consistently down a couple of points in the polling, is that a real indicator of the final results? In 2012, the polling numbers generally showed Obama ahead of Romney, even if the final numbers didn’t turn out quite right. However, Mitt Romney was a career politician, so he fit into the traditional polling models quite nicely. Trump defies the standard, and I’m not sure if anyone really knows what his final voter turnout will look like. This is more than simple margin of error; this reflects a problem with the systematic nature of polling. I’ve been saying all along that I expect Trump’s percentage of the actual vote to end up 3 to 5 points higher than whatever his final polling numbers turn out to be. Would you agree with this? Or would you say that he’ll get more or less?

2) Looking at the numbers of these polling results, there seems to be an unusually high percentage of people who are saying they will vote but are either undecided about Clinton/Trump, or will vote for a third party candidate. Who would you say these people are? My explanation is that a good number of these people are conservatives who are still not on the Trump bandwagon, and may never publicly admit to it. I expect a good portion of these people to end up voting Trump; and if they don’t, they simply won’t vote at all. I don’t see these people being undecided Clinton voters. After all this time (decades. Decades!), I just cannot imagine anyone could still be undecided about Hillary Clinton. I believe the 45-46% number she’s been getting so far represents her entire voter base. I think 47% is basically her ceiling (her “glass” ceiling, if you will), which means Trump has an opportunity to capture more than 50% of the vote himself, as long as people actually turn out to vote for him. What would you say to that? If there really are undecided Clinton voters out there, who are they? Where do they live? What are their lives and jobs like? How could they have gone this long without making up their minds about Hillary Clinton? Are they young people who don’t know any better? Leftover Bernie Sanders supporters, perhaps? I can’t think of anything else. The way I look at it, all Trump has to do is get half of these people, maybe even only a third of them, as long as the rest don’t vote for Clinton (which I don’t think they will). That, coupled with whatever unknown Trump voters may be lurking outside the polling system, should be enough to get him over the top. What do you say?

3) The media continues to make the claim that most new voter registrants this year identify as Democrats. What would you say to that? I have a very difficult time believing this to be true. Who are all of these Democrats that will turn out in greater numbers for Hillary than for Obama? It just doesn’t make sense to me. Are these people lifelong Democrats who are registering in order to vote for Trump? Are they Hispanics who are registering to vote against Trump? Or is the media just making this up and saying it as though it were true in order to make everybody believe it is true? I don’t see Hillary performing at Obama’s levels; the best I see her doing is along the lines of John Kerry, around 60 million votes. Is this a case of the media wanting so badly to believe that Hillary will overwhelm the turnout so she can get a mandate to, well, continue being Hillary that they are making up the story as they go along? Or do they have a legitimate reason to make these claims? I know you dislike the media (I do, too), but is it really possible that all of them are so delusional as to go along with this script, even if it turns out to be faulty?

4) I have been reading your work since all the way back to when you were posting articles about the Birdmen (I think that’s what it was; it’s been a long time), and I generally agree with you on most things. One of the times when I most disagreed with you was back when you were predicting Romney to win in 2012. I just didn’t understand how someone who was clearly so intelligent could be so mistaken. However, now I wonder if you were simply four years ahead of the curve. With how far Obama has tried to push the country to the left, I have a difficult time seeing the majority of voters accepting that. The Democrats want so badly to believe that the Obama coalition represents the new Democratic party, and that his numbers will serve as their new baseline going forward. I don’t see that at all, and from your comments it’s clear you don’t, either. However, I do have to wonder where you get your own information. I believe in the past you indicated that you used to work for the political machine, so you know the game from the inside out. If that’s true, are you still confident that your old ways of doing things are still accurate? I’ve noticed that you tend to go against a lot of what “conventional wisdom” would have us believe, and that’s a good thing. But I also wonder, is it not possible that maybe conventional wisdom is right, and you’re wrong?

5) Finally, after everything that has happened, do you still expect Trump to win?

 

I bold the above for emphasis. I want to thank you for your interest and even remembering what was even said here. In 2008, I was somewhat arrogant, and was feeding off of some bad information (and other things not to go into detail). In 2012, I was noticing that we are due for a political realignment.

In the American political system (since there are so many non-Americans who do read this site), there is something called ‘political realignments’. Most of the time, the American political system goes between two parties, between two core constituencies. But civilizations change and history change. The constituencies cannot remain constant. Every 35-40 years, there is a re-alignment of the constituencies. This is cyclical over the course of centuries. Much of the time, these re-alignments are brought in by major wars or major economic panics.

An example is the War of 1812. The political parties were the Democrats/Republicans and the Federalist party. After the war, it was discovered that the Federalist Party was trying to separate a state (Massachusetts? My memory is hazy) to rejoin Great Britain. It resulted in the destruction of the Federalist Party. Andrew Jackson, a hero of the war, held the mantle of the Democrat Party and the Whig Party was formed to oppose Jackson. Keep in mind that a realignment isn’t a dramatic shift in one cycle. It usually takes several cycles to complete show it. Historians just point to one election as a central indicator.

1860 is another such re-alignment. The Democrat Party, in all its forms at this time, were rallying around the cause of slavery. The Whig Party, composed of northern and southern interests, refused to oppose slavery. The reason why is that the Whigs were propelled by money interests. It wasn’t just the southern states that profited from slavery, the northern states did too with shipping all those slave goods out. The Whig Party wanted ‘moderation’ on slavery. There was a distinct disconnect between the PARTY and the PEOPLE. The people wanted to oppose slavery. This is where the Republican Party came from and a two term congressman named Lincoln came from.

1896 was a major realignment with Mckinley winning over Bryan. Much of this was response to the economic depression of 1893. This used to be called the ‘Great Depression’ but since got changed in history books to The Long Depression. During this time period, the American public would throw out both Republicans and Democrats because the economy kept sucking. The economy got back on track after McKinley (whether his credit was deserved or not), and this started a new type of realignment. Rural farmers were for Democrats. Industry and money were for Republicans.

In 1932, you have the election of FDR much in response to the Great Depression. You have a major realignment. One constituency were blacks who used to only vote Republican because Lincoln freed the slaves. Since FDR, blacks have been a Democrat constituency.

Here is a wiki link if those want to learn more of realignments.

From there, it gets murky and debated what was or was not a political realignment. I would argue that in 1968, give or take an election cycle or two, the political realignment was that of non-alignment. The Pangea of the New Deal Coalition was broken up into continents and poilticans were trying to place them behind them.

Ultimately, I would say the election of 1980 was the last major political realignment for these reasons. This was the ‘Reagan Revolution’ so to say. You had an ideological shift. What was a Republican now? A conservative. This meant certain ideas and beliefs. Every politician since 1980 has attempted to emulate Reagan in style… including Obama. Obama even admits that he greatly admires Reagan for how he campaigned. What this means is that Reagan would tell stories, he would use humor, he never came across like a regular politician. Reagan also had close ties to the grassroots as opposed to a politician relying on factions aligning behind him. Winning 49 states in 1984 is nothing to sneeze at, and both Democrat and Republican candiates want to be like him. Bill Clinton campaigned as a ‘third way’ type candidate and tried to emulate Reagan’s style. George W. Bush tried to do the same thing and went so far to even buy a ranch like Reagan did (which he sold after his presidency was over).

The ‘Reagan Revolution’ of realignment would also reveal itself a few cycles later with the realignment of the American south to be solidly Republican. To give an idea of how long this took, Texas didn’t become a Republican state until 2000. One reason why Republicans took control in Congress in 1994 election was because many Democrats were changing parties to Republican. I was in Washington DC during the 1994 election; I remember that well.

Realignment doesn’t necessarily mean one side wins and one side loses. It doesn’t mean one party takes control for 40 years. All realignment means is a re-aligning of constituencies. It is important to remember this.

We are due for another political realignment. They come every 30-40 years. It has been 36 years since 1980. Since I believe in cycles, I believe we will have another political realignment on schedule.

Notice I haven’t expressed any opinion yet so far, just an interpretation of history and political realignments. So let us look into the present now.

-You have to be over 50 to remember a major Republican presidential win-

We are all confined to our imaginations and life history. There was a infamous recent interview between Newt Gingrich and Megyn Kelley. Newt said something very prescient: both sides have their alternate realities and, as we come down to the vote, one alternate reality will be the true reality. If you look at the Republican camp and then go to the Democrat camp, you have two different alternate universes going on about the state of the race.

Much of our ‘alternate universe’ is based on our life history and imagination. Here is a fact that has me deeply concerned about the emotional health of some people: Only Democrats over 50 years old remember a major Republican presidential win!

Consider the young Democrat. The last major Republican presidential win was in 1988 with Bush versus Dukakis. Assuming one has to be at least age 20 to be fully cognizant of what transpired and not looking at history books, one would have to be at least 48 to remember the last time of a big Republican presidential win. And even at that age, this person would not understand the shock of 1984 (Republican candidate winning 49 states) or 1980.

Think about it. After 1988, you have 1992 with a Bill Clinton win (not a major won at 43% but still big electoral win). OK. Go to 1996, another Bill Clinton win. Then we go to 2000 and with the eccentricity of that election, it is clear that no one considers that a ‘major Republican win’. In 2004, Democrats do not consider that a big Republican win since, it was a one state victory, and they say it was due to ‘Ground Game’. That term, ‘Ground Game’, has since keep coming from them. Then you have the big Obama win of 2008, a lesser Obama win of 2012, and now you have today.

If you listen to Democrats, as I have been doing lately, they have never experienced a world of a major Republican presidential win. They cannot imagine it. Can a Republican win a presidential election? What you hear from them is, “Only if they got ground game! And Trump doesn’t got ground game! Hillary Clinton has all the ground game!” haha. From their life experience, the only way a Republican ever ‘won’ was due to ‘superior ground game’ meaning Bush in 2004. The Democrats can imagine a big Hillary Clinton win. They can imagine a small Hillary Clinton win. They can even imagine a small Trump win as an upset. But they cannot imagine a big Trump win. And I also find absolutely fascinating that many Republicans have the same imagination borders.

I monitor PoliGaf at the NeoGaf forum. Did you know that NeoGaf is one of the top five referrers to the Hillary Clinton website? Since there is the same ties of gaming, I’ve been observing them with interest. My observations about their limited life experience in how they have never seen a big Repub win in that they cannot imagine that, and their constant overuse of the term ‘Ground Game’, helped me lead to my analysis of them above.

Polls Being Shoved In People’s Faces is new

Polling has always been done. However, polls used to be an addition to a news story, not a news story in itself. There would be a news story about the race and at the bottom of the article or at the end of the broadcast, a poll or two might be mentioned.

The concept of polls as news entities as themselves is new and seemed to start largely in 2008. Remember also that polls cost money to make. Those who pay those to make polls would be the media organization itself. If polls are a news item, then we literally have media outlets creating their own news which itself should be raising red flags.

There is really not much understanding of polls despite how lately they have been shoved in people’s faces. Can anyone name for me a presidential election where all the shocked newscasters said, “All the polls were wrong?” I can. 1980. Look at the newscasts of the time, you will hear Peter Jennings and others say that. One can also point to 2004 where Kerry thought he won due to exit polling.

“Are you saying we should discount polls?”

I’m saying we should have some down-to-earth reality. Did you know that in 2002, the major networks refused to use their exit poll data? The trend is after a presidential election, the midterm has the party out of party gaining seats. In 2002, the Republicans gained seats. The exit polls showed this. Since the media didn’t want to believe the polls (they declared they were faulty), they just reported votes (which I preferred) and the votes had Republicans gain in that midterm.

My point is to not discount them, but stop shoving them in people’s faces. Polls are not the be-all end-all.

Political scientists do not rely entirely on polls either. There is a reason why you have some political scientists going against what polling data tells us because they are using other data indicators. Let’s go through some of these.

-It is unlikely for a party to hold the presidency for three consecutive elections.

-In an open presidential race, the candidate seen as the most ‘outsider’ tends to win.

-When the economy is bad or people do not like the direction the country is going, the party in power suffers.

We can go through all of these. The point is that there are historical cycles and patterns. What worries me is that I read on Poligaf with these young Democrats actually thinking a Republican will never win the presidency again. Look. History is cyclical. Politics is cyclical.

In my prior posts of the election this cycle, I was trying to help them out or at least steer them to a more down-to-earth viewpoint. Here is what I’ve said so far. Trump is not seen as a ‘chaos candidate’ by the Republican electorate. They LIKE Trump. They actually like him. They like his style and how he does things. They like how he is a street fighter (after putting up with Republican candidates who wouldn’t defend themselves). When Trump starts blasting someone, the young Democrats may think he is having a ‘meltdown’, but Republicans see Trump as defending himself, and they like him doing that.

2016 will NOT be like 2012 because we have different candidates. I can say that Trump is FAR more popular with Republicans than Romney ever was (I haven’t seen such a Republican candidate’s connection to the grassroots since Reagan). I can also say, with certainty, that Hillary Clinton is LESS popular than Obama. So if we start with 2012 results, have Clinton underperform Obama some, have Trump overperform Romney some, what do we find? What no one realizes in 2012 is how CLOSE it was in three or four states. In Florida, Obama won by LESS than 1%! During the Gingrich and Kelley interview, Gingrich responded to something Kelley said as, “Do you really think Hillary Clinton will get the black turnout that Obama did?” It is a fair question. In other words, what was being suggested is that Clinton will underperform. from Obama’s numbers. Since there was that article about how ‘Ohio is no longer bellwether’, put Ohio in Trump’s column, plus Florida, and all the other Romney States, and add a couple more and that is the election. The couple more would be Iowa, which Clinton is not doing well in, or Nevada/New Hampshire/Pennsylvania/Michigan/etc.

What set me off was when they were actually discussing Texas voting for Clinton. Since I live in this state, I had to say, “Hey! In order for a state to vote for a presidential candidate, that party must be capable of winning a state wide election there.” In Texas, Democrats have been unable to win a state-wide election since 2000 at least. Since Republicans cannot win a state wide election in California, it is as absurd to say Trump can win California. But there are Democratic states that do elect state-wide Republicans such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, to name a few.

One thing I also said was that if you look at which polls got it right in 2012, it was the LATimes tracking poll that got Obama +3 correct. What does that LA Times poll say today? It had Trump up. After I wrote that, we began to see articles appear about the LA Times poll and the few other 2012 polls that got it right. The point is that any serious political scientist will not discount a polling methodology when it was correct. Science is not about consensus, science is about accuracy.

A big reason why many Republicans do not trust media polling isn’t because they say Trump is losing, but because it showed Romney winning at 2012. Gallup had Romney winning. They were so embarrassed, they stopped polling!

My point is that polling should never be taken as gospel. Polling was majorly wrong even in 2012. Polling was even wrong in 2014 (look at the races in Virginia).

No one will do this because people put so many emotions into polling. It is like they seek comfort from quantifying things. If you look at polling, it is all over the map. There was that ABC poll that had a 12 point swing within a week. Now, either something majorly changed, the sample was changed, or funny business was going on. Whatever. It’s just a stupid poll.

I still say the best indicator is where the candidates’ money and travel plans are.

Now to finally answer the emailer’s questions:

1) Trump’s candidacy is so unusual, and his appeal so different than that of the normal politician, that conventional wisdom and traditional polling don’t necessarily apply to him. I assume you would agree with that. In terms of voting share, where do you think he will end up? If he’s consistently down a couple of points in the polling, is that a real indicator of the final results? In 2012, the polling numbers generally showed Obama ahead of Romney, even if the final numbers didn’t turn out quite right. However, Mitt Romney was a career politician, so he fit into the traditional polling models quite nicely. Trump defies the standard, and I’m not sure if anyone really knows what his final voter turnout will look like. This is more than simple margin of error; this reflects a problem with the systematic nature of polling. I’ve been saying all along that I expect Trump’s percentage of the actual vote to end up 3 to 5 points higher than whatever his final polling numbers turn out to be. Would you agree with this? Or would you say that he’ll get more or less?

Trump is a master of marketing, and I do not say that lightly. Trump is one of the ‘great’ American businessmen along with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Bezos, Zuckerburg, among others. Do you know how stupid it would say to ask, “Does Steve Jobs understand marketing?” You mean the guy with the reality-distortion field? Marketing books are written ABOUT Steve Jobs. In the same way, marketing books are written about Donald Trump. When I say he is a master of marketing, I mean he is one of the best marketers who has ever lived.

Trump is a Blue Ocean candidate.

Nate Silver says, “That may be true, but those new voters have to first register.”

Who says they are new voters? Blue Ocean isn’t necessarily about ‘new’ markets, as it is about ‘asymmetric values’ and not competing values. What if a bunch of Democrats vote for Trump?

“Why would they do that?”

Political re-alignment. The Rust Belt is poised to shatter. I was helping Jay Cost (who is now a never-Trumper btw) during the 2004 election, and I was specifically watching Pennsylvania. What I discovered is that there is something very interesting lurking in that general area.

Focus less on Trump’s personality and more on his policies for a moment. What is a Trump policy we have never heard a Republican do? It is a major Trump pillar.

Economic Nationalism. In other words, Trump is ditching the Free Trade plank of the Republicans. This may be the straw to break a re-alignment of the Rust Belt states to the Republican Party similar to how the southern states re-aligned to the Republican party. Where is Trump today? Wisconsin. Pennsylvania. Michigan. The Rust Belt.

The Rust Belt is aptly named because of all the abandoned plants and factories. Trump’s economic nationalism is exactly what these areas want to hear. I recognize that while most of these areas are largely registered Democrats, they remind me of the Democrats of the South right before they switched.

Did you know Texas used to be a swing state? It is why JFK put LBJ on the ticket so he could hold onto Texas. Swing states could be a forerunner of a future re-alignment.

One MAJOR data indicator of future general vote turnout is the primary turn out. In 2008, the Democrats had huge voter turn out for primaries while Republicans didn’t. In 2016, more Republicans participated in the primary than ever before and completely dwarfed Democrats in their primary.

Further…

I am not a fan of Karl Rove, but I agree with him on a statement he made in 2000 that a vibrant primary creates a better general election candidate. The Republican 2016 primary was rigorous and dramatic. The Democrat 2016 primary was completely rigged and Bernie Sanders never had a chance. Clinton had to beat someone, so Sanders was the fall guy. With the superdelegates, there was no way Clinton couldn’t win.

Further…

Candidates who lose primaries in the past do not do well in General Elections. Dole lost a presidential primary and would later lose the general election. McCain lost a presidential primary and would later lose the general election. Gore lost a primary and would lose the general. Since Clinton lost to Obama in 2008 primary, I suspect the Democrat grassroots are not with her. Sure, she has the ‘D’ by her name which will give her 40%, but I mean grassroot passion.

“But what about Reagan who lost a presidential primary?”

That was to Ford who was a sitting president, and Ford didn’t win it by much.

Further…

We have seen many bad presidential candidates. There are people who really lack charisma and are kinda duds. Romney was stiff. McCain was… ugh. Kerry and Gore were yuck. George W. Bush wasn’t much of a personality, but he was certainly more charming than Al Gore. Remember Mondale? Ugh. Or Jimmy Carter?

My cat has more charisma than Hillary Clinton. No one wants to listen to her. Trump, whatever people think of him, is quite a character. People know that Trump had to fight to get to where he was today as a candidate. But Clinton rigged her primary against Sanders and Clinton is only famous because she was the wife of a president. While I think the ‘like-able’ numbers are overstated, look at it from a context of respect. People have a respect for Trump. But I do not think anyone truly respects Hillary Clinton. There is a massive respect gap.

I know, I know, at the last month both campaigns do their ‘burn down other candidate’ to get their voters to the poll and depress the other group’s voters.

Further…

Personality-wise, Trump reminds me of Truman. Truman was a high energy person, very populist, and wasn’t afraid to attack political opponents. I’ve read McCullough’s Biography of Truman (which is a MASSIVE book). Truman saw himself as a businessman and always was well groomed in a power suit (does this sound familiar?). Truman’s idea of campaigning was to do the ‘whistle-stop’ tours where he would go across the country by train doing mass rallies. At the time, the media dismissed Truman’s massive crowds. “People have never seen a President before. It is his celebrity they like.” History is cyclical.

My prediction…. and God I have been wrong doing this before, but here goes…

Trump +4 national vote with several Rust Belt state flips for a total of 300+ Electoral Votes.

Next question:

2) Looking at the numbers of these polling results, there seems to be an unusually high percentage of people who are saying they will vote but are either undecided about Clinton/Trump, or will vote for a third party candidate. Who would you say these people are? My explanation is that a good number of these people are conservatives who are still not on the Trump bandwagon, and may never publicly admit to it. I expect a good portion of these people to end up voting Trump; and if they don’t, they simply won’t vote at all. I don’t see these people being undecided Clinton voters. After all this time (decades. Decades!), I just cannot imagine anyone could still be undecided about Hillary Clinton. I believe the 45-46% number she’s been getting so far represents her entire voter base. I think 47% is basically her ceiling (her “glass” ceiling, if you will), which means Trump has an opportunity to capture more than 50% of the vote himself, as long as people actually turn out to vote for him. What would you say to that? If there really are undecided Clinton voters out there, who are they? Where do they live? What are their lives and jobs like? How could they have gone this long without making up their minds about Hillary Clinton? Are they young people who don’t know any better? Leftover Bernie Sanders supporters, perhaps? I can’t think of anything else. The way I look at it, all Trump has to do is get half of these people, maybe even only a third of them, as long as the rest don’t vote for Clinton (which I don’t think they will). That, coupled with whatever unknown Trump voters may be lurking outside the polling system, should be enough to get him over the top. What do you say?

The third party candidates are not going to do well at all (not like Perot).

I think you are right that Hillary Clinton has a ceiling in the early forty percentage range.

The real question are the independents. Keep in mind that many Republican grassroots have been at war with the GOP in the last few cycles (e.g. Tea Party). Many of those independents are not ‘moderates’ who think both parties are ‘bad’, but conservatives thinking they are in a rigged system of both parties against them. Trump seems to be targeting them by saying how the ‘system is rigged’. This is what they want to hear.

3) The media continues to make the claim that most new voter registrants this year identify as Democrats. What would you say to that? I have a very difficult time believing this to be true. Who are all of these Democrats that will turn out in greater numbers for Hillary than for Obama? It just doesn’t make sense to me. Are these people lifelong Democrats who are registering in order to vote for Trump? Are they Hispanics who are registering to vote against Trump? Or is the media just making this up and saying it as though it were true in order to make everybody believe it is true? I don’t see Hillary performing at Obama’s levels; the best I see her doing is along the lines of John Kerry, around 60 million votes. Is this a case of the media wanting so badly to believe that Hillary will overwhelm the turnout so she can get a mandate to, well, continue being Hillary that they are making up the story as they go along? Or do they have a legitimate reason to make these claims? I know you dislike the media (I do, too), but is it really possible that all of them are so delusional as to go along with this script, even if it turns out to be faulty?

The real story is how many new registered Republicans there were due to the vigorous GOP primary race.

4) I have been reading your work since all the way back to when you were posting articles about the Birdmen (I think that’s what it was; it’s been a long time), and I generally agree with you on most things. One of the times when I most disagreed with you was back when you were predicting Romney to win in 2012. I just didn’t understand how someone who was clearly so intelligent could be so mistaken. However, now I wonder if you were simply four years ahead of the curve. With how far Obama has tried to push the country to the left, I have a difficult time seeing the majority of voters accepting that. The Democrats want so badly to believe that the Obama coalition represents the new Democratic party, and that his numbers will serve as their new baseline going forward. I don’t see that at all, and from your comments it’s clear you don’t, either. However, I do have to wonder where you get your own information. I believe in the past you indicated that you used to work for the political machine, so you know the game from the inside out. If that’s true, are you still confident that your old ways of doing things are still accurate? I’ve noticed that you tend to go against a lot of what “conventional wisdom” would have us believe, and that’s a good thing. But I also wonder, is it not possible that maybe conventional wisdom is right, and you’re wrong?

Every presidential cycle, I find myself closer to the candidate in terms of space. In this cycle, I am only two people removed from Trump (meaning I have an associate who knows a major Trump adviser). If this keeps up, in the next couple of cycles I might actually find myself right next to a candidate! Scary! hahaha

I am going to give you a really interesting thought. You ready? Here it is:

Polling ceases to matter once voting begins

America is already voting. There are absentee votes. There is early voting. What does this mean?

It means we can already detect enthusiasm and turnout trends. This is not based on POLLS. This is based on ACTUAL VOTES. We can tell how many Republicans, Democrats, and Independents went to vote. Now, we cannot say who they voted for. But we can assume Republicans vote for Trump and Democrats vote for Clinton and split the Independents. (Most of the time, Independents break for the challenger which would be Trump).

Right now, Republican turnout is UP over 2012 numbers. Democrat turnout is DOWN from 2012.

“But I have a poll here that says…”

It doesn’t matter. That ‘poll’ isn’t data. We have data now, not much data, but it is significant data to determine trends based on state history patterns.

And I’ll tell you something else. You are looking at the wrong polls now. Both campaigns don’t give a shit about the media polls (except as rhetoric to their voters).

Exit polling has been leaked to the campaigns. Exit polling from early voting.

Why do you think Trump took off to start campaigning in the Rust Belt states all of a sudden? Why is Trump putting ad money into New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Michigan?

Why do you think Hillary Clinton has begun throwing money at Colorado and Wisconsin and Michigan? Why is Hillary Clinton in DETROIT this last week of the campaign?

Follow the money.

Follow the candidates.

I think 2016 is the year the Rust Belt shatters and foretells a re-alignment of Rust Belt toward Republican.

Above: A hilarious Japanese take on Trump

Advertisements

Categories

%d bloggers like this: