As Trump's blue-state tour heads back East, it would be worth a stop in New Jersey, where he was only down 4 points in early September according to the Emerson poll.
Of course, that series also had him down only 3 in Rhode Island, which a more recent poll from Emerson shows has widened into a 20-point lead for Clinton. Something similar may have happened in New Jersey in the meantime, but unlike RI, a stop in NJ could have influence in neighboring eastern PA.
Emerson broke down support by Congressional district, and Trump's greatest margin in districts with large populations, and that are blue counties needed to flip the state, is in the 3rd district (50 to 38) and 6th district (60 to 32).
The 3rd is mainly Burlington County, which is part of the Philadelphia metro area and about 70% white. A rally here could draw people and media interest from the PA side of the Philly metro.
The 6th lies along the northern Shore and lower Gateway regions. It contains New Brunswick and Middletown. District is over 60% white. A rally in the western part of this district would draw fans from the northern red county of Morris, along with nearby red counties in Monmouth and Ocean. Unfortunately not as close to PA.
The make-up and appeal would be highly similar to eastern PA, so the same speech could be given. It's filled with groups who love Trump: white ethnic, Catholic, downsized blue-collars and a nervous suburban middle class that isn't so obsessed with liberal culture war issues, is weary of government corruption, and dreads tax increases. (Earlier post showing that the Mid-Atlantic is the most tax-hating region of the country, and has been since at least the '70s.)
At this point, there's only so much more blood that can be squeezed out of the stones that Trump has visited dozens of times already. It would be worth at least one rally in NJ during a tour of eastern PA.
Downside is a waste of a few hours of Trump's time, upside is boosting support in eastern PA to win that state, and converting NJ into a close state rather than a solid blue state (mandate). And regardless of the Electoral College outcome, a boost to the national popular vote coming from NJ.
November 1, 2016
Clinton campaign finally undone by lack of solidarity among elites
A post from early in the primary season discussed how our era of hyper-competitiveness among the elites was going to undo itself.
For decades, this soaring competitiveness has bloated the elites' ranks and made them richer and more powerful. The absence of a united opposition force to the elites allowed them to maintain the illusion that higher and higher levels of competitiveness would make them ever more wealthy and powerful.
Now a cohesive opposition has arisen, and it has knocked out the fragmented elites. First was on the GOP side, with the Trump movement bulldozing over the various party leaders and candidates -- none of whom wanted to bow out, and none of whom wanted to assume sole responsibility for leading the counter-revolution. The Bush family, Romney, Ryan, Priebus on the leadership side, and the dozen Governors and Senators on the candidate side.
On the Democrat side, the opposition did not come from the voters, who were fewer in number than the supporters of the status quo. Unlike the Republicans, there was only one counter-revolutionary candidate to present a united front for the Establishment.
Opposition on their side needed to come from within the elites, like Obama and Hillary getting into a feud over her email server, or whatever.
But what united force could compel a stand-off between those two? It turns out it was the FBI agents, from the lowest level up through most of the brass, who were about to mutiny over how scot-free Crooked Hillary had gotten off, despite mounting evidence of how numerous and serious her criminal enterprises have been.
That united front within the FBI forced their director Comey's hand, and that made Obama choose sides between a united mutinous FBI plus the single-minded mob of the American electorate, or Crooked Hillary and Clinton world. He's chosen to let her fend for herself, and that has set the rest of the fractures going throughout the Democrat Establishment, the media, the voters, and perhaps even within Clinton world itself.
Who knows how badly Anthony Weiner is selling out his groomers and patrons the Clintons, as he's faced with jail time and prison rape for sexting an underage girl?
One of the greatest misunderstandings of class dynamics in a period of soaring inequality is the notion of "class war". Certainly the wealthy and powerful are screwing over the working class in order to line their own pockets, for example by off-shoring manufacturing jobs to countries with cheaper labor costs. But it's not their goal to screw them over, and their heart is not in that fight. They don't actually compete with the working class for status.
Most of the warfare and tension takes place within the elite class itself, among individuals or at best small networks. What may look like a large faction, like Clinton world, may prove to be a fragile coalition whose mini-groups will turn on each other upon the slightest stress. The largest unit is probably just a nuclear family (extended in other societies), like the Clintons or the Obamas (or the Bushes or the Trumps).
The hyper-competitiveness and me-first motivation leaves the elite class highly vulnerable to an even modest united force against it. We didn't even have to take up arms, or torches and pitchforks. They can tell we're coming after them, and they're all breaking formation and stampeding toward the exits.
After the election is won, our debt goes to the FBI -- not Comey himself, who acted like a rat at first, and who, as Roger Stone reminds us, has worked to get the Clintons off before when he was in the DoJ (Sandy Berger affair, Marc Rich pardon). Rather, to the united front of agents who threatened to mutiny, go public, or whatever, if Comey didn't take real action.
For decades, this soaring competitiveness has bloated the elites' ranks and made them richer and more powerful. The absence of a united opposition force to the elites allowed them to maintain the illusion that higher and higher levels of competitiveness would make them ever more wealthy and powerful.
Now a cohesive opposition has arisen, and it has knocked out the fragmented elites. First was on the GOP side, with the Trump movement bulldozing over the various party leaders and candidates -- none of whom wanted to bow out, and none of whom wanted to assume sole responsibility for leading the counter-revolution. The Bush family, Romney, Ryan, Priebus on the leadership side, and the dozen Governors and Senators on the candidate side.
On the Democrat side, the opposition did not come from the voters, who were fewer in number than the supporters of the status quo. Unlike the Republicans, there was only one counter-revolutionary candidate to present a united front for the Establishment.
Opposition on their side needed to come from within the elites, like Obama and Hillary getting into a feud over her email server, or whatever.
But what united force could compel a stand-off between those two? It turns out it was the FBI agents, from the lowest level up through most of the brass, who were about to mutiny over how scot-free Crooked Hillary had gotten off, despite mounting evidence of how numerous and serious her criminal enterprises have been.
That united front within the FBI forced their director Comey's hand, and that made Obama choose sides between a united mutinous FBI plus the single-minded mob of the American electorate, or Crooked Hillary and Clinton world. He's chosen to let her fend for herself, and that has set the rest of the fractures going throughout the Democrat Establishment, the media, the voters, and perhaps even within Clinton world itself.
Who knows how badly Anthony Weiner is selling out his groomers and patrons the Clintons, as he's faced with jail time and prison rape for sexting an underage girl?
One of the greatest misunderstandings of class dynamics in a period of soaring inequality is the notion of "class war". Certainly the wealthy and powerful are screwing over the working class in order to line their own pockets, for example by off-shoring manufacturing jobs to countries with cheaper labor costs. But it's not their goal to screw them over, and their heart is not in that fight. They don't actually compete with the working class for status.
Most of the warfare and tension takes place within the elite class itself, among individuals or at best small networks. What may look like a large faction, like Clinton world, may prove to be a fragile coalition whose mini-groups will turn on each other upon the slightest stress. The largest unit is probably just a nuclear family (extended in other societies), like the Clintons or the Obamas (or the Bushes or the Trumps).
The hyper-competitiveness and me-first motivation leaves the elite class highly vulnerable to an even modest united force against it. We didn't even have to take up arms, or torches and pitchforks. They can tell we're coming after them, and they're all breaking formation and stampeding toward the exits.
After the election is won, our debt goes to the FBI -- not Comey himself, who acted like a rat at first, and who, as Roger Stone reminds us, has worked to get the Clintons off before when he was in the DoJ (Sandy Berger affair, Marc Rich pardon). Rather, to the united front of agents who threatened to mutiny, go public, or whatever, if Comey didn't take real action.
October 30, 2016
Prediction: Trump 48, Clinton 45, Johnson 4, Stein 2, All Others 1
Heading down the home stretch, it's time to make a prediction.
I'm basing it solely off of the USC poll, which was the RAND poll in 2012. It's the only panel poll, following the same sample of individuals over time, so that any changes reflect true changes of heart and not a shift in the make-up of the respondents depending on who feels like participating. (See this earlier post for details.)
It's also an internet poll, which the Brexit results revealed were more accurate than phone polls. They even provide tablets and internet access to people without them, to get as representative of a slice of America as possible. And the sample is part of an ongoing, longer-term study independent of the election, so it won't be affected by who initially felt like joining an election-themed study during an election year.
Under its RAND branding in 2012, it was the most accurate -- more so than the IBD poll, which performed worse in 2012 than it did in '08 and '04. (IBD is not a panel but ad hoc sample, and is phone-based with about 65% being cell phones.)
The day-of estimates were Obama 49.4, Romney 46.8, for a spread of 2.6 points. Actual outcome was Obama 51.1, Romney 47.2, for a spread of 3.9. The RAND poll was off by just 1.3 points in the margin of victory, only 0.4 for the lesser candidate, and 1.7 points for the greater candidate.
I interpret the smaller error for the loser to reflect that fact that whoever admits to voting for the lesser candidate is all there is, while the greater candidate will enjoy some "everybody likes a winner" support among those who are not strongly decided.
When we look at the full series, an even more accurate picture emerges (click the earlier links for the interactive graphic):
After the summer stage was over, Obama clearly pulled away from Romney. Throughout the various ups and downs, Obama's ceiling was around 51-52, the peak being 51.2 on 10/27. That is only 0.1 point different from what he actually got. Romney's peaks throughout the series never broke 47, and that is what he ended up getting.
This indicates that the peaks are what the candidate will get -- a long-term maximum support level -- and the fluctuations below them are just people feeling wishy-washy from day to day.
Now we turn to the 2016 USC poll, which is the same methodology as before only in the present context:
After the summer conventions were over, Trump was slightly ahead or tied around Labor Day, after which he pulled clearly ahead. Trump is visibly the greater candidate, Clinton the lesser candidate.
Despite becoming tied again during the final phase of "uncertain about Trump," he's pulled away again. It's clear that his line has remained mostly above her line, and at worst tied. Unlike Obama in 2012, Trump is not the incumbent President and does not enjoy as decisive of an advantage. Other than that, its his line that obviously resembles Obama's line from last time.
So Trump will win, but by what margin?
Using the same insight of looking at peaks along the way, Trump's ceiling of support is 47-48, with the all-time peak of 47.8 on 9/18. Since Labor Day, Clinton's ceilings have been at 44-45, with a max at 45.1 on 10/23.
I'd say that makes the final outcome look like Trump 48, Clinton 45. I don't think Trump will get quite the last-minute bandwagon effect that Obama did because undecideds this time have consistently been uneasy about Trump the outsider, vs. Obama the incumbent. Even supposing he gets 49, I don't think that will come at the expense of Clinton's 45, but from the third party voters.
Speaking of whom, there are 7% left after Trump and Clinton. Stein has been polling around 2-3%, and her voters are going to be stickier because they're voting for her platform rather than merely against others or as an empty protest vote. Unlike her run in 2012, this time there was the Bernie phenomenon, many of whom are turning to her.
Johnson abandoned his campaign over a month ago, and his supporters cannot explain what he stands for, so he is just a vote-parking space for people who are uneasy about both Trump and Clinton. He polls at around 7%, but will be lucky to get half of that -- although probably close to it, given the wimpy cuckiness in the electorate about Trump the change agent. The other half just want to wash their hands of the election already and will simply abstain.
Final prediction, then: Trump 48, Clinton 45, Johnson 4, Stein 2, All Others 1. If the cucks for Johnson man up, it will shift 1 point from him to Trump (pretty iffy at this point, though).
Hope I'm wrong and it's a wider victory, but that's what the best poll suggests.
There's no evidence of a landslide, though, so please get that idea out of your head, lest you feel let down that we only won by 4 points. Remember: everyone said we were supposed to go down in flames during the primaries! Trump winning at all is a massive accomplishment for him and us the voters -- don't cry about it just because we're not going to win by 10 points!
But they say that conservatives have a lower tolerance for ambiguity, so it's either landslide or implosion in most of his supporters' minds, and we shouldn't take their claim about predicting a "landslide" literally, but simply meaning "we're going to win rather than lose".
Just one more week -- we got this!
I'm basing it solely off of the USC poll, which was the RAND poll in 2012. It's the only panel poll, following the same sample of individuals over time, so that any changes reflect true changes of heart and not a shift in the make-up of the respondents depending on who feels like participating. (See this earlier post for details.)
It's also an internet poll, which the Brexit results revealed were more accurate than phone polls. They even provide tablets and internet access to people without them, to get as representative of a slice of America as possible. And the sample is part of an ongoing, longer-term study independent of the election, so it won't be affected by who initially felt like joining an election-themed study during an election year.
Under its RAND branding in 2012, it was the most accurate -- more so than the IBD poll, which performed worse in 2012 than it did in '08 and '04. (IBD is not a panel but ad hoc sample, and is phone-based with about 65% being cell phones.)
The day-of estimates were Obama 49.4, Romney 46.8, for a spread of 2.6 points. Actual outcome was Obama 51.1, Romney 47.2, for a spread of 3.9. The RAND poll was off by just 1.3 points in the margin of victory, only 0.4 for the lesser candidate, and 1.7 points for the greater candidate.
I interpret the smaller error for the loser to reflect that fact that whoever admits to voting for the lesser candidate is all there is, while the greater candidate will enjoy some "everybody likes a winner" support among those who are not strongly decided.
When we look at the full series, an even more accurate picture emerges (click the earlier links for the interactive graphic):
After the summer stage was over, Obama clearly pulled away from Romney. Throughout the various ups and downs, Obama's ceiling was around 51-52, the peak being 51.2 on 10/27. That is only 0.1 point different from what he actually got. Romney's peaks throughout the series never broke 47, and that is what he ended up getting.
This indicates that the peaks are what the candidate will get -- a long-term maximum support level -- and the fluctuations below them are just people feeling wishy-washy from day to day.
Now we turn to the 2016 USC poll, which is the same methodology as before only in the present context:
After the summer conventions were over, Trump was slightly ahead or tied around Labor Day, after which he pulled clearly ahead. Trump is visibly the greater candidate, Clinton the lesser candidate.
Despite becoming tied again during the final phase of "uncertain about Trump," he's pulled away again. It's clear that his line has remained mostly above her line, and at worst tied. Unlike Obama in 2012, Trump is not the incumbent President and does not enjoy as decisive of an advantage. Other than that, its his line that obviously resembles Obama's line from last time.
So Trump will win, but by what margin?
Using the same insight of looking at peaks along the way, Trump's ceiling of support is 47-48, with the all-time peak of 47.8 on 9/18. Since Labor Day, Clinton's ceilings have been at 44-45, with a max at 45.1 on 10/23.
I'd say that makes the final outcome look like Trump 48, Clinton 45. I don't think Trump will get quite the last-minute bandwagon effect that Obama did because undecideds this time have consistently been uneasy about Trump the outsider, vs. Obama the incumbent. Even supposing he gets 49, I don't think that will come at the expense of Clinton's 45, but from the third party voters.
Speaking of whom, there are 7% left after Trump and Clinton. Stein has been polling around 2-3%, and her voters are going to be stickier because they're voting for her platform rather than merely against others or as an empty protest vote. Unlike her run in 2012, this time there was the Bernie phenomenon, many of whom are turning to her.
Johnson abandoned his campaign over a month ago, and his supporters cannot explain what he stands for, so he is just a vote-parking space for people who are uneasy about both Trump and Clinton. He polls at around 7%, but will be lucky to get half of that -- although probably close to it, given the wimpy cuckiness in the electorate about Trump the change agent. The other half just want to wash their hands of the election already and will simply abstain.
Final prediction, then: Trump 48, Clinton 45, Johnson 4, Stein 2, All Others 1. If the cucks for Johnson man up, it will shift 1 point from him to Trump (pretty iffy at this point, though).
Hope I'm wrong and it's a wider victory, but that's what the best poll suggests.
There's no evidence of a landslide, though, so please get that idea out of your head, lest you feel let down that we only won by 4 points. Remember: everyone said we were supposed to go down in flames during the primaries! Trump winning at all is a massive accomplishment for him and us the voters -- don't cry about it just because we're not going to win by 10 points!
But they say that conservatives have a lower tolerance for ambiguity, so it's either landslide or implosion in most of his supporters' minds, and we shouldn't take their claim about predicting a "landslide" literally, but simply meaning "we're going to win rather than lose".
Just one more week -- we got this!
One cheer for Obama (it could have been Hillary or McCain)
All the sordid stuff that has come to light since last year about Crooked Hillary really makes you appreciate how lucky we were that she did not win the 2008 primary and presidency (GOP was destined to lose that one). Obama has been a worse president than Bush, but he's turned out to have been a less ruinous placeholder between Neo-liberal-conservatism and the populist-nationalist revolution.
Obama's cabinet was crafted by Wall Street, but it would have been the same with Hillary "Goldman Sachs" Clinton. Obama has been the most pro-Wall Street president, but so would have Hillary.
Obama pushed less intensely for destabilizing the Middle Eastern strongmen, and bears less of the blame for Libya, Syria, etc., which were Hillary's pet causes. Obama has also been pretty lukewarm toward Israel, whereas Hillary would have been buddy-buddy with Bibi.
Obamacare was Hillarycare and Romneycare, no difference there.
The culture war stuff -- racial tension, crippling the cops, gay marriage, etc. -- came from the ground up on the liberal-to-moderate side, and would have pulled the president that way regardless of who it was.
Hillary is an inveterate panderer and would have gone along with whatever was trending in liberal identity politics circles. She wasn't a community organizer and prefers to keep out of sight, so she might not have tried to get out in front of these changes and stoked them like Obama did, but that's a second-order difference at best.
Obama is on the down-low, but so is Hillary. Obama at least hides whoever he gets sodomized by, while Hillary and Huma go everywhere together (maybe not so much anymore).
Both look down their noses on ordinary Americans, whom they consider culturally alien to their rootless cosmopolitan social circle.
Obama is a narcissist, but Hillary is a sociopath.
By far the most important difference, though, was that Obama the freshman senator was a total non-entity who brought nothing into the White House. He signed off on whatever Wall Street wanted for appointments, policy, and so on. But he didn't have an extensive network of wealthy, powerful, entrenched associates.
Hillary would have brought in everyone who was groomed into Clintonworld during Bill's presidency, as well as those who joined when she was in New York politics as senator. That includes aides, politicians, media figures, donors, the Clinton Foundation -- the whole sprawling enterprise of Clinton Inc.
Corruption and devastation (internal and external) would have been far more damaging and irreversible if Clinton Inc. had taken over the White House again, only this time with even greater wealth, power, and influence at their disposal. Look how bad it got when she was merely Secretary of State.
The 2008 Democrat primary was an incredibly close race -- never thought we'd have ghetto blacks and airheaded college students to thank for America's stay of execution (but you probably also never thought America's savior would be a guy from Queens). Now the white working class over the age of 40 can step in for a real candidate and put this broken country back in working order.
Obama's cabinet was crafted by Wall Street, but it would have been the same with Hillary "Goldman Sachs" Clinton. Obama has been the most pro-Wall Street president, but so would have Hillary.
Obama pushed less intensely for destabilizing the Middle Eastern strongmen, and bears less of the blame for Libya, Syria, etc., which were Hillary's pet causes. Obama has also been pretty lukewarm toward Israel, whereas Hillary would have been buddy-buddy with Bibi.
Obamacare was Hillarycare and Romneycare, no difference there.
The culture war stuff -- racial tension, crippling the cops, gay marriage, etc. -- came from the ground up on the liberal-to-moderate side, and would have pulled the president that way regardless of who it was.
Hillary is an inveterate panderer and would have gone along with whatever was trending in liberal identity politics circles. She wasn't a community organizer and prefers to keep out of sight, so she might not have tried to get out in front of these changes and stoked them like Obama did, but that's a second-order difference at best.
Obama is on the down-low, but so is Hillary. Obama at least hides whoever he gets sodomized by, while Hillary and Huma go everywhere together (maybe not so much anymore).
Both look down their noses on ordinary Americans, whom they consider culturally alien to their rootless cosmopolitan social circle.
Obama is a narcissist, but Hillary is a sociopath.
By far the most important difference, though, was that Obama the freshman senator was a total non-entity who brought nothing into the White House. He signed off on whatever Wall Street wanted for appointments, policy, and so on. But he didn't have an extensive network of wealthy, powerful, entrenched associates.
Hillary would have brought in everyone who was groomed into Clintonworld during Bill's presidency, as well as those who joined when she was in New York politics as senator. That includes aides, politicians, media figures, donors, the Clinton Foundation -- the whole sprawling enterprise of Clinton Inc.
Corruption and devastation (internal and external) would have been far more damaging and irreversible if Clinton Inc. had taken over the White House again, only this time with even greater wealth, power, and influence at their disposal. Look how bad it got when she was merely Secretary of State.
The 2008 Democrat primary was an incredibly close race -- never thought we'd have ghetto blacks and airheaded college students to thank for America's stay of execution (but you probably also never thought America's savior would be a guy from Queens). Now the white working class over the age of 40 can step in for a real candidate and put this broken country back in working order.
October 29, 2016
Ticketmaster -- another target for Trump the trustbuster to trigger progressives?
The home stretch of Crooked Hillary's failed campaign includes concerts by Jay Z, Bon Jovi, Katy Perry, and other things meant to connect with da kidz.
How great of a troll would it be for Trump to throw in a reference to Ticketmaster as another ripe target for breaking up a monopoly in the public interest?
Progressives have been complaining about the monopolistic fleecing of fans by Ticketmaster since the '90s, especially Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam. More recently in 2010, opposition arose to their merger with Live Nation, the biggest promoter of concerts.
Trump wouldn't have to go into any intricacies, just lay out the basic complaint that a monopoly in the ticket selling sector leads to sky-high prices for consumers. They turn an event that should be open to fans of all classes into elite-only affairs -- only a Hillary Clinton donor could afford it. Customer service also stinks when there's only one game in town.
He's already re-tweeted Michael Moore, why not drop a hint that "We're going to look into" what can be done about Ticketmaster?
The only trick is tying it into the news cycle (taco bowl on Cinco de Mayo). With all the big-name concerts coming up, that could do it.
"I notice all these performers are campaigning for Crooked Hillary, who says she wants to help the middle class. Why doesn't she ask them to refuse to use Ticketmaster for their concerts, and make tickets more affordable for middle class and working people? If they're that famous, they should have the clout to do it, right? If she is not willing, I will strongly look into the monopoly that Ticketmaster has become -- it's just another example of the rigged system that ordinary Americans face every day, and we cannot allow it to continue."
If any of the sell-outs get snarky with him on Twitter, he can easily fire back:
"John Cougar Mellancamp should go back to writing songs about the dignity of small town life instead of campaigning for Hillary "Wall Street" Clinton."
"I really liked Bruce Springsteen better back when he was a blue collar hero. Now just another limousine liberal pawn for Crooked Hillary. SAD."
How great of a troll would it be for Trump to throw in a reference to Ticketmaster as another ripe target for breaking up a monopoly in the public interest?
Progressives have been complaining about the monopolistic fleecing of fans by Ticketmaster since the '90s, especially Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam. More recently in 2010, opposition arose to their merger with Live Nation, the biggest promoter of concerts.
Trump wouldn't have to go into any intricacies, just lay out the basic complaint that a monopoly in the ticket selling sector leads to sky-high prices for consumers. They turn an event that should be open to fans of all classes into elite-only affairs -- only a Hillary Clinton donor could afford it. Customer service also stinks when there's only one game in town.
He's already re-tweeted Michael Moore, why not drop a hint that "We're going to look into" what can be done about Ticketmaster?
The only trick is tying it into the news cycle (taco bowl on Cinco de Mayo). With all the big-name concerts coming up, that could do it.
"I notice all these performers are campaigning for Crooked Hillary, who says she wants to help the middle class. Why doesn't she ask them to refuse to use Ticketmaster for their concerts, and make tickets more affordable for middle class and working people? If they're that famous, they should have the clout to do it, right? If she is not willing, I will strongly look into the monopoly that Ticketmaster has become -- it's just another example of the rigged system that ordinary Americans face every day, and we cannot allow it to continue."
If any of the sell-outs get snarky with him on Twitter, he can easily fire back:
"John Cougar Mellancamp should go back to writing songs about the dignity of small town life instead of campaigning for Hillary "Wall Street" Clinton."
"I really liked Bruce Springsteen better back when he was a blue collar hero. Now just another limousine liberal pawn for Crooked Hillary. SAD."
October 28, 2016
When Hillary loses, will Dems go to Bernie or suicidally double down?
In 1992 the Republican party began to fly off the rails, pursuing a conservative culture war that only appealed to middle and upper-middle class residents of red states. With the abrupt takeover of the party by the Trump movement (not the man, but the millions who voted for him), it is once again viable and poised to win.
Will the Democrat Establishment and the base of its voters learn the lesson and gravitate toward Trump's appeal of populism and America-first, or will it double down on corporate elitism and globalism?
The past couple months suggest that it is committing even stronger to failed Clintonism. The war-mongering against Russia is ridiculous enough, and the stupidity is compounded by what the war would be fought over -- deposing Assad and controlling Syria. The entire Democrat mainstream is intensifying the plan for the United States foreign policy apparatus to be a globalist policeman / dictator.
Trump on the other hand favors detente with major powers and otherwise extricating ourselves from all these damn pointless entanglements. And so did Bernie.
While the Democrats have not been as rabid about pushing the TPP and other de-industrializing trade deals, they are still all on board and not bad-mouthing anything about them. Trump and Bernie are both staunchly against such policies, and have been for years -- the fact that the Democrat mainstream is staying silent amounts to running away from the direction the country as a whole wants to go in.
Trustbusting (especially in the media sector), re-instating Glass-Steagall, ending the revolving door between politicians and lobbyists, term limits on Congressmen -- on and on down the line, Trump and Bernie represent the changing direction of the voters, while Clinton and her ilk are either keeping mum or actively resisting the changes.
The only major policy that Trump and Bernie differ on is immigration, and Clinton is not pushing so hard on that issue because she knows there is minimal support for open borders and amnesty. Otherwise she would be hammering it over and over.
Instead, she and the rest of the mainstream Democrats have shifted to an intensified moralizing liberal crusade, akin to the shift in 1992 among Republicans. Remember that Reagan did not run on social and cultural topics, but on the economy, the government, and foreign policy. Obama likewise did not represent a triumph of a liberal culture war -- rather, the repudiation of neoconservative policies in the economy, government, and foreign policy.
The Democrats have misread what the Obama wins were all about, assuming they were an endorsement of hardcore liberal culture warring. The Republicans made that same mistake in 1992, and they would still be fighting that losing battle if it weren't for Trump.
That suggests that the Democrat party is in for a few decades of increasing irrelevance, until it is shaken up by an America-first populist.
Bernie went a decent length in that direction, but was bad on the crucial matter of population composition and citizenship -- and he and his supporters were weak on that issue because a piece of their brains was still stuck in liberal culture war mode. Deporting illegal immigrants will disproportionately affect non-white and non-American people, ergo racist and untenable.
The conventional wisdom among Democrats will become that Bernie was just a less racist version of Donald Trump, and since Trump = Hitler, we can't have Bernie or his movement. They just need to keep trying harder at pushing the liberal side of the culture war, and sometime they'll win back the White House.
Expect something as out-of-place as Bob Dole in the 1996 race -- when his best chance was closer to '76. I wouldn't be surprised if after Trump's 8 years in office, the Democrats nominate a geriatric Howard Dean, whose campaign anthem will be the Rock Against Bush soundtrack from 20 years earlier.
What concrete signs are there, if any, that the elite politicians, the large donors, and the solid base of the Democrat party has shifted toward Bernie rather than away from Bernie in the past month or so, realizing that's the only way to give Trump a run for his money? I don't see it.
I know people will say that the colossal failure of Crooked Hillary Clinton will sink that wing of the party, but that could be wishful thinking. Remember what happened when Bush got clobbered in '92 -- they doubled down and drove themselves further and further into irrelevancy.
Will the Democrat Establishment and the base of its voters learn the lesson and gravitate toward Trump's appeal of populism and America-first, or will it double down on corporate elitism and globalism?
The past couple months suggest that it is committing even stronger to failed Clintonism. The war-mongering against Russia is ridiculous enough, and the stupidity is compounded by what the war would be fought over -- deposing Assad and controlling Syria. The entire Democrat mainstream is intensifying the plan for the United States foreign policy apparatus to be a globalist policeman / dictator.
Trump on the other hand favors detente with major powers and otherwise extricating ourselves from all these damn pointless entanglements. And so did Bernie.
While the Democrats have not been as rabid about pushing the TPP and other de-industrializing trade deals, they are still all on board and not bad-mouthing anything about them. Trump and Bernie are both staunchly against such policies, and have been for years -- the fact that the Democrat mainstream is staying silent amounts to running away from the direction the country as a whole wants to go in.
Trustbusting (especially in the media sector), re-instating Glass-Steagall, ending the revolving door between politicians and lobbyists, term limits on Congressmen -- on and on down the line, Trump and Bernie represent the changing direction of the voters, while Clinton and her ilk are either keeping mum or actively resisting the changes.
The only major policy that Trump and Bernie differ on is immigration, and Clinton is not pushing so hard on that issue because she knows there is minimal support for open borders and amnesty. Otherwise she would be hammering it over and over.
Instead, she and the rest of the mainstream Democrats have shifted to an intensified moralizing liberal crusade, akin to the shift in 1992 among Republicans. Remember that Reagan did not run on social and cultural topics, but on the economy, the government, and foreign policy. Obama likewise did not represent a triumph of a liberal culture war -- rather, the repudiation of neoconservative policies in the economy, government, and foreign policy.
The Democrats have misread what the Obama wins were all about, assuming they were an endorsement of hardcore liberal culture warring. The Republicans made that same mistake in 1992, and they would still be fighting that losing battle if it weren't for Trump.
That suggests that the Democrat party is in for a few decades of increasing irrelevance, until it is shaken up by an America-first populist.
Bernie went a decent length in that direction, but was bad on the crucial matter of population composition and citizenship -- and he and his supporters were weak on that issue because a piece of their brains was still stuck in liberal culture war mode. Deporting illegal immigrants will disproportionately affect non-white and non-American people, ergo racist and untenable.
The conventional wisdom among Democrats will become that Bernie was just a less racist version of Donald Trump, and since Trump = Hitler, we can't have Bernie or his movement. They just need to keep trying harder at pushing the liberal side of the culture war, and sometime they'll win back the White House.
Expect something as out-of-place as Bob Dole in the 1996 race -- when his best chance was closer to '76. I wouldn't be surprised if after Trump's 8 years in office, the Democrats nominate a geriatric Howard Dean, whose campaign anthem will be the Rock Against Bush soundtrack from 20 years earlier.
What concrete signs are there, if any, that the elite politicians, the large donors, and the solid base of the Democrat party has shifted toward Bernie rather than away from Bernie in the past month or so, realizing that's the only way to give Trump a run for his money? I don't see it.
I know people will say that the colossal failure of Crooked Hillary Clinton will sink that wing of the party, but that could be wishful thinking. Remember what happened when Bush got clobbered in '92 -- they doubled down and drove themselves further and further into irrelevancy.
October 27, 2016
Wear Trump gear every day in public until election is over
In order to push back against attempts at demoralization, particularly from the media, and to rally people heading down the home stretch, it's time to start wearing Trump markers in public every day until the election is over.
That will manifest our greater enthusiasm in an everyday setting, not just what people see from rallies on TV or comments on the internet. It puts a human face on the movement, which does not come across so much from a yard sign (although put up one of those too).
It is also more likely to have a contagious effect at the grassroots. Even if onlookers don't wear Trump gear of their own, at least they'll be more likely to talk positively about voting to others, assuming they were roughly on our side.
The goal is not to appear confrontational, as though we were about to man the barricades (that would come only if the Establishment tries to steal the election). Everyday people around you are not the immediate enemy. Those who are uncertain about turning out, or are genuinely undecided, are on the wimpy and cucky side -- they just want to be reassured that Trump voters are normal people.
I guarantee that no one from the enemy's side will try to shame or ostracize you in public, in order to send a message to undecided onlookers. Only paid activists bother attempting this, and they only concentrate at Trump rallies or on the internet. Even the strongly committed Hillary voters are too demoralized to confront a stranger. The only responses you will get will be from fellow travelers, especially ones who were uncertain whether they were the only one leaning toward Trump, and are relieved to see someone being the first to break the silence in public.
Trump has been taking so much public abuse, slander, and libel on our behalf -- the least we can do is put ourselves out there, too, whether we get a few sideways glances or not.
At this stage, giving our public support matters more than giving financial support. The polls are not so tight because of insufficient advertising. It's because a handful of people are still uneasy about either turning out, or choosing Trump if they do. Making those people feel more comfortable by seeing real-life support for Trump in public will go farther than hearing an ad on the drive to work.
And some of them truly have no preference other than joining the in-group. With no visible signs of support from Hillary voters, that only leaves the Trump side for the conformists to join. Who would want to join a group that is weakly held together, when there's a more emotionally connected group as the alternative?
You don't have to go all-out all day long, but at least wear a hat or shirt out for an hour or so in normal public places. High-traffic retail spaces are best, like a supermarket.
It's simple to find places selling Trump hats if you don't already have one.
There's no excuse to stay sitting on the sidelines with less than two weeks to go. We need to make our presence known -- not just as a warning to the enemy, but more importantly to motivate anyone who doesn't like Crooked Hillary to show up and vote Trump with the rest of the crowd.
That will manifest our greater enthusiasm in an everyday setting, not just what people see from rallies on TV or comments on the internet. It puts a human face on the movement, which does not come across so much from a yard sign (although put up one of those too).
It is also more likely to have a contagious effect at the grassroots. Even if onlookers don't wear Trump gear of their own, at least they'll be more likely to talk positively about voting to others, assuming they were roughly on our side.
The goal is not to appear confrontational, as though we were about to man the barricades (that would come only if the Establishment tries to steal the election). Everyday people around you are not the immediate enemy. Those who are uncertain about turning out, or are genuinely undecided, are on the wimpy and cucky side -- they just want to be reassured that Trump voters are normal people.
I guarantee that no one from the enemy's side will try to shame or ostracize you in public, in order to send a message to undecided onlookers. Only paid activists bother attempting this, and they only concentrate at Trump rallies or on the internet. Even the strongly committed Hillary voters are too demoralized to confront a stranger. The only responses you will get will be from fellow travelers, especially ones who were uncertain whether they were the only one leaning toward Trump, and are relieved to see someone being the first to break the silence in public.
Trump has been taking so much public abuse, slander, and libel on our behalf -- the least we can do is put ourselves out there, too, whether we get a few sideways glances or not.
At this stage, giving our public support matters more than giving financial support. The polls are not so tight because of insufficient advertising. It's because a handful of people are still uneasy about either turning out, or choosing Trump if they do. Making those people feel more comfortable by seeing real-life support for Trump in public will go farther than hearing an ad on the drive to work.
And some of them truly have no preference other than joining the in-group. With no visible signs of support from Hillary voters, that only leaves the Trump side for the conformists to join. Who would want to join a group that is weakly held together, when there's a more emotionally connected group as the alternative?
You don't have to go all-out all day long, but at least wear a hat or shirt out for an hour or so in normal public places. High-traffic retail spaces are best, like a supermarket.
It's simple to find places selling Trump hats if you don't already have one.
There's no excuse to stay sitting on the sidelines with less than two weeks to go. We need to make our presence known -- not just as a warning to the enemy, but more importantly to motivate anyone who doesn't like Crooked Hillary to show up and vote Trump with the rest of the crowd.
October 25, 2016
Triggered by Trump the trustbuster
In his own Gettysburg Address, Trump announced his plans for breaking up monopolies, beginning with the tentative merger of AT&T and Time Warner, but also going back to Comcast and NBC Universal, and similar cases. Today just six corporations control all of the media, compared to 50 corporations back in 1983 -- and even that was already considered a "monopoly" by media researchers, compared to the days when every town had a thriving independently owned newspaper.
The new trustbusting agenda is yet another example of the Green meets Red re-alignment between the anti-globalization movement of 15-20 years ago and the Republican base (not the Establishment). To a former Nader 2000 voter like yours truly, this election truly is the gift that keeps on giving.
Not everyone is taking the re-alignment so joyfully, though. Here's The Young Turks: Politics reporter, Emma Vigeland:
See also her video discussion of the merger ("live from my mom's kitchen" -- so cute), where she explains that Trump is "out-progressiving" Clinton, before getting triggered and moving on to more comfortable thoughts.
In contempo lefty lingo, "fascist" means a fan of law-and-order, as opposed to preferring anarchy for criminals. For the childlike mind of leftists, the fundamental political divide is between "Go to your room without dinner" vs. "I'll do what I want, Dad". So in her imagination, Trump is an authoritarian, wanting the police to crush the average citizens, and large corporations to have their way with the peon workers and consumers.
Vigeland doesn't get the underlying logic of populism, whose leaders want to protect the little people from destabilizing forces beyond their individual control. That includes roving criminals, as well as gigantic corporations. And voters who choose populist candidates are not seeking authoritarianism, but that kind of protection from destabilizing forces too unwieldy to fend against all by themselves.
To minimize the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance, lefties re-imagine Trump as only wanting to break up the media monopoly for selfish motives -- they screwed him over with biased coverage, now he'll make them pay. If true, that would make him less genuinely progressive, and not a threat to their worldview, where a Republican can never be anti-corporate.
No doubt getting revenge against his slanderers will be icing on the cake for Trump, but he's taken too many anti-corporate stands on too many topics that don't bear directly on character assassination. E.g., slamming a 35% tariff on off-shored manufactured goods, to keep the plants and jobs from moving outside the country.
If the left sees too many pieces of Trump's agenda all at the same time, they won't be able to unsee the populist gestalt -- they'll have to accept that he's not an authoritarian or fascist, who would be trying to centralize corporate control.
You can see them occasionally admit reality, when they chuckle at the "surreal" experience of a Republican out-progressiving a Democrat. They use the word "surreal" as a DOES NOT COMPUTE error message, prompting their mind to find a way to fix the problem -- he's just doing it for selfish reasons! (Never mind how much money and brand value he has sacrificed by taking all this abuse for over a year now.)
It remains to be seen whether they'll ultimately relent and join the cool people's party, or whether they'll be popping pills for cognitive dissonance reduction every day until he's left the White House. Either way, keep your eyes open for useful allies like these ones.
The new trustbusting agenda is yet another example of the Green meets Red re-alignment between the anti-globalization movement of 15-20 years ago and the Republican base (not the Establishment). To a former Nader 2000 voter like yours truly, this election truly is the gift that keeps on giving.
Not everyone is taking the re-alignment so joyfully, though. Here's The Young Turks: Politics reporter, Emma Vigeland:
Trump opposes #ATTTimeWarner. Hey, @HillaryClinton.. Why is a fascist more progressive on this than the "progressive who gets things done"? pic.twitter.com/yod0io9bUw— Emma Vigeland (@EmmaVigeland) October 24, 2016
See also her video discussion of the merger ("live from my mom's kitchen" -- so cute), where she explains that Trump is "out-progressiving" Clinton, before getting triggered and moving on to more comfortable thoughts.
In contempo lefty lingo, "fascist" means a fan of law-and-order, as opposed to preferring anarchy for criminals. For the childlike mind of leftists, the fundamental political divide is between "Go to your room without dinner" vs. "I'll do what I want, Dad". So in her imagination, Trump is an authoritarian, wanting the police to crush the average citizens, and large corporations to have their way with the peon workers and consumers.
Vigeland doesn't get the underlying logic of populism, whose leaders want to protect the little people from destabilizing forces beyond their individual control. That includes roving criminals, as well as gigantic corporations. And voters who choose populist candidates are not seeking authoritarianism, but that kind of protection from destabilizing forces too unwieldy to fend against all by themselves.
To minimize the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance, lefties re-imagine Trump as only wanting to break up the media monopoly for selfish motives -- they screwed him over with biased coverage, now he'll make them pay. If true, that would make him less genuinely progressive, and not a threat to their worldview, where a Republican can never be anti-corporate.
No doubt getting revenge against his slanderers will be icing on the cake for Trump, but he's taken too many anti-corporate stands on too many topics that don't bear directly on character assassination. E.g., slamming a 35% tariff on off-shored manufactured goods, to keep the plants and jobs from moving outside the country.
If the left sees too many pieces of Trump's agenda all at the same time, they won't be able to unsee the populist gestalt -- they'll have to accept that he's not an authoritarian or fascist, who would be trying to centralize corporate control.
You can see them occasionally admit reality, when they chuckle at the "surreal" experience of a Republican out-progressiving a Democrat. They use the word "surreal" as a DOES NOT COMPUTE error message, prompting their mind to find a way to fix the problem -- he's just doing it for selfish reasons! (Never mind how much money and brand value he has sacrificed by taking all this abuse for over a year now.)
It remains to be seen whether they'll ultimately relent and join the cool people's party, or whether they'll be popping pills for cognitive dissonance reduction every day until he's left the White House. Either way, keep your eyes open for useful allies like these ones.
Lessons from Brexit
This is not just another presidential election season, since one of the candidates (Trump) has made the issues so black-and-white, so fundamental, and so urgent, that it is taking on the character of a national referendum on what direction we want the country to go in. The closest analog in time, theme, and cultural background, is the Brexit vote, and we would be foolish to ignore the outcome there when trying to predict what will happen in two weeks here.
First, the decision to Leave the EU was not geographically uniform -- there were entire areas like Scotland that went heavy toward Remain, as well as large urban areas throughout England. This will be akin to the red state vs. blue state pattern, as well as urban areas going blue in general.
That is to be expected from the past several elections, but it's worth emphasizing in order to make Trump voters realize that there will be no landslide akin to Nixon or Reagan. We (and the British) live in too polarized and partisan of a climate for there to be uniform support for any position throughout the country.
There also was not a landslide in the national vote -- 52 to 48, which is not unreasonable to assume for Trump beating Hillary. He will not win by 10-15 points.
The key region of support for Leave was the Midlands, which is whiter and more de-industrialized than other parts of England. Amazingly, a city here broke the pattern of urban areas voting to Remain, and in fact it is the second-largest metro area in all of England -- Birmingham voted to Leave. This is akin to the Rust Belt in America, which will be the key region for Trump. We may be in for a surprise where a major city will break the blue mold and vote Trump -- Pittsburgh or Cincinnati would be my guess.
Youth voting disappeared for the EU referendum, compared to the last two general elections: only 36% of 18-24 year-olds voted, and 58% of 25-34 year-olds.* It reached 83% for ages 65+. Younger voters were not only more toward Remain, but more extreme in the sense of farther away from the national average. Older voters were more toward Leave, but closer to the national average.
In other words, the climate turned off large chunks of normal people in the younger age groups, leaving only the hardcore extremists, while that same climate engaged an unusually high number of older people, including all normal people.
We're already seeing that among voters who are under 25 or 35 -- they could not be more disengaged, and viscerally repulsed by the election at this point. Polls have already found their desire to vote has fallen dramatically since 2012, but that was awhile ago. After the most combative debates in memory, most younger people are saying they hate both sides, there's nothing positive or uplifting on either side, they're feeling bullied into voting, and they can't wait for the whole election to just get over with, and they can get back to their regularly scheduled program of playing video games and watching Netflix. They have washed their hands of the election.
They were excited and talking non-stop way back when Bernie was still in the race, and they tried to fake enthusiasm for Gary Johnson after the Convention. But who's heard from him or seen him in the past month and a half, since "Aleppo"? His numbers are plummeting in the polls, from over 10% to just over 5%. Most of these will not bother voting on Election Day. Jill Stein will pick up the hardcore progressives, but they're not that numerous. And they all loathe Crooked Hillary Clinton, and have since the primaries, whose wounds have never closed (made fresh with each WikiLeaks revelation).
Young people have more or less gone back to fantasizing about "What if Bernie were still in the race?" or have checked out altogether emotionally. They're mostly not going to turn out, although those that do will be extremist SJWs supporting Hillary. Trump will get enough support among younger voters -- like Leave, it won't be a total blowout among young people -- but it won't end up making much of a difference.
Polls, polls, polls -- wrong, wrong, wrong. Here is a postmortem from YouGov about what aspects of polling made them better or worse. The main methodological finding is that phone polls did worse than online polls, and just about all of the public polling right now is done by phone (the USC / LA Times poll is a notable exception, and did much better than others in 2012, when it was known as the RAND poll).
Regarding turnout, apart from far fewer young people turning out than expected, the polls also missed how many less-than-highly educated voters would show up (even adjusting for the correlation of education and age). That is going to be a big surprise this time, too, particularly in certain white working-class areas in the Rust Belt where it will tip the balance in the state. As with Brexit, the non-college-educated are heavily in favor of Trump, where they would normally vote Democrat if at all (and their English counterparts would vote Labor).
We will undoubtedly be reading all kinds of spergery up through Election Day about what various poll aggregators are saying. How was their track record on Brexit? Here is quantitative tea-leaf-reader Sam Wang's summary on the very day of the EU referendum. He puts it at Remain +1, with a 95% confidence interval going only as far as Leave +2.6 on that side -- in reality, it was Leave +3.8. All that number crunching, and the outcome landed far outside his range of expected outcomes. Nobody has appreciated this failure, and everybody is going through the same motions with the polls on Trump vs. Clinton.
One under-appreciated source of error was what to do with people who said "don't know". No matter what pollsters did, their decision favored Remain and made them less accurate. I take that to mean that most people saying "don't know" at such a late date, on such a fundamentally important question, with polar opposite choices only, is simply unwilling to state their clearly held opinion. And that opinion will be whichever choice is less socially or otherwise acceptable to confess.
The entire financial and political Establishment, all of the media, educated elites, and even powerful foreign leaders like the President of the United States, were all bearing down on anyone thinking of voting Leave. While most of them could not have cared less what the elites thought, some small chunk was intimidated into public silence -- but privately voted enthusiastically for Leave.
I think that's what's going on with Americans who are answering "don't know" -- it's the "Shy Trump" voter. By now, you know pretty well who you're for, there is no middle ground for fence-sitting with such polar opposite choices, and the matters are of fundamental importance (immigration, trade, war, corruption, and so on).
The entire world is hammering you over the head to vote Clinton or be cast out of respectable society forever, so if that were your choice, why not proudly admit that you're going with the socially sanctioned choice? Some of these "don't know" voters could decide to vote third party (also not very acceptable in what you perceive to be a do-or-die election), but most are going to vote Trump. And of course some may wimp out of voting at the last minute, despite passing through the "likely voter" screen on the poll. At any rate, Clinton will get very few of these, and Trump will get the plurality.
That's all pretty good news for the Trump movement.
There are, however, a few things working against us that were not at play in Britain. They have to do with rigging the election. All ballots were paper and counted by hand in the EU referendum. We are using mostly electronic machines, and in many deep blue states the company making them is owned by George Soros. We will need good exit polling to see if they've been mechanically rigged -- if there's more than a 2-point difference between the exit polls and the reported result.
We also have more endemic corruption in our cities, specifically relating to elections, than they do in England. These cities with one-party rule and large non-white populations are the biggest threat to an honest and fair election, and unfortunately they are located in several states that we are looking to win -- Philadelphia and Detroit, for example.
I'd say that means a closer race than Brexit, as far as the initial reports are concerned. There could be voter fraud and election theft involved if we lose Pennsylvania or Michigan (definitely if we lose Ohio). That would take awhile to resolve. But with all the preparation Trump and others have been doing to deal with those contingencies, there's not much else we can do or worry about.
As far as last-minute shocks, the GOP Establishment launched a failed coup with the hot mic tape and coordinated desertion. That's why Trump's numbers have been holding more or less even over the past week or so, when they should be entering the final upward phase of the wishy-washy cycle. I don't know whether that's better or worse than some wacko on the Leave side killing a Remain MP a week before the vote. And yet the Leave side survived that last-minute crisis.
What else can we say but buckle up and enjoy the end of this very close race.
* A later poll done weeks after the vote found youth turnout that was nearly double the estimate of the day-of poll. I dismiss that as the respondents lying about having voted, in order to not appear that they had shirked their civic duty to keep Britain in the EU. Young people were widely blamed when their minimal turnout was reported, giving them quite an incentive to lie about it weeks later.
First, the decision to Leave the EU was not geographically uniform -- there were entire areas like Scotland that went heavy toward Remain, as well as large urban areas throughout England. This will be akin to the red state vs. blue state pattern, as well as urban areas going blue in general.
That is to be expected from the past several elections, but it's worth emphasizing in order to make Trump voters realize that there will be no landslide akin to Nixon or Reagan. We (and the British) live in too polarized and partisan of a climate for there to be uniform support for any position throughout the country.
There also was not a landslide in the national vote -- 52 to 48, which is not unreasonable to assume for Trump beating Hillary. He will not win by 10-15 points.
The key region of support for Leave was the Midlands, which is whiter and more de-industrialized than other parts of England. Amazingly, a city here broke the pattern of urban areas voting to Remain, and in fact it is the second-largest metro area in all of England -- Birmingham voted to Leave. This is akin to the Rust Belt in America, which will be the key region for Trump. We may be in for a surprise where a major city will break the blue mold and vote Trump -- Pittsburgh or Cincinnati would be my guess.
Youth voting disappeared for the EU referendum, compared to the last two general elections: only 36% of 18-24 year-olds voted, and 58% of 25-34 year-olds.* It reached 83% for ages 65+. Younger voters were not only more toward Remain, but more extreme in the sense of farther away from the national average. Older voters were more toward Leave, but closer to the national average.
In other words, the climate turned off large chunks of normal people in the younger age groups, leaving only the hardcore extremists, while that same climate engaged an unusually high number of older people, including all normal people.
We're already seeing that among voters who are under 25 or 35 -- they could not be more disengaged, and viscerally repulsed by the election at this point. Polls have already found their desire to vote has fallen dramatically since 2012, but that was awhile ago. After the most combative debates in memory, most younger people are saying they hate both sides, there's nothing positive or uplifting on either side, they're feeling bullied into voting, and they can't wait for the whole election to just get over with, and they can get back to their regularly scheduled program of playing video games and watching Netflix. They have washed their hands of the election.
They were excited and talking non-stop way back when Bernie was still in the race, and they tried to fake enthusiasm for Gary Johnson after the Convention. But who's heard from him or seen him in the past month and a half, since "Aleppo"? His numbers are plummeting in the polls, from over 10% to just over 5%. Most of these will not bother voting on Election Day. Jill Stein will pick up the hardcore progressives, but they're not that numerous. And they all loathe Crooked Hillary Clinton, and have since the primaries, whose wounds have never closed (made fresh with each WikiLeaks revelation).
Young people have more or less gone back to fantasizing about "What if Bernie were still in the race?" or have checked out altogether emotionally. They're mostly not going to turn out, although those that do will be extremist SJWs supporting Hillary. Trump will get enough support among younger voters -- like Leave, it won't be a total blowout among young people -- but it won't end up making much of a difference.
Polls, polls, polls -- wrong, wrong, wrong. Here is a postmortem from YouGov about what aspects of polling made them better or worse. The main methodological finding is that phone polls did worse than online polls, and just about all of the public polling right now is done by phone (the USC / LA Times poll is a notable exception, and did much better than others in 2012, when it was known as the RAND poll).
Regarding turnout, apart from far fewer young people turning out than expected, the polls also missed how many less-than-highly educated voters would show up (even adjusting for the correlation of education and age). That is going to be a big surprise this time, too, particularly in certain white working-class areas in the Rust Belt where it will tip the balance in the state. As with Brexit, the non-college-educated are heavily in favor of Trump, where they would normally vote Democrat if at all (and their English counterparts would vote Labor).
We will undoubtedly be reading all kinds of spergery up through Election Day about what various poll aggregators are saying. How was their track record on Brexit? Here is quantitative tea-leaf-reader Sam Wang's summary on the very day of the EU referendum. He puts it at Remain +1, with a 95% confidence interval going only as far as Leave +2.6 on that side -- in reality, it was Leave +3.8. All that number crunching, and the outcome landed far outside his range of expected outcomes. Nobody has appreciated this failure, and everybody is going through the same motions with the polls on Trump vs. Clinton.
One under-appreciated source of error was what to do with people who said "don't know". No matter what pollsters did, their decision favored Remain and made them less accurate. I take that to mean that most people saying "don't know" at such a late date, on such a fundamentally important question, with polar opposite choices only, is simply unwilling to state their clearly held opinion. And that opinion will be whichever choice is less socially or otherwise acceptable to confess.
The entire financial and political Establishment, all of the media, educated elites, and even powerful foreign leaders like the President of the United States, were all bearing down on anyone thinking of voting Leave. While most of them could not have cared less what the elites thought, some small chunk was intimidated into public silence -- but privately voted enthusiastically for Leave.
I think that's what's going on with Americans who are answering "don't know" -- it's the "Shy Trump" voter. By now, you know pretty well who you're for, there is no middle ground for fence-sitting with such polar opposite choices, and the matters are of fundamental importance (immigration, trade, war, corruption, and so on).
The entire world is hammering you over the head to vote Clinton or be cast out of respectable society forever, so if that were your choice, why not proudly admit that you're going with the socially sanctioned choice? Some of these "don't know" voters could decide to vote third party (also not very acceptable in what you perceive to be a do-or-die election), but most are going to vote Trump. And of course some may wimp out of voting at the last minute, despite passing through the "likely voter" screen on the poll. At any rate, Clinton will get very few of these, and Trump will get the plurality.
That's all pretty good news for the Trump movement.
There are, however, a few things working against us that were not at play in Britain. They have to do with rigging the election. All ballots were paper and counted by hand in the EU referendum. We are using mostly electronic machines, and in many deep blue states the company making them is owned by George Soros. We will need good exit polling to see if they've been mechanically rigged -- if there's more than a 2-point difference between the exit polls and the reported result.
We also have more endemic corruption in our cities, specifically relating to elections, than they do in England. These cities with one-party rule and large non-white populations are the biggest threat to an honest and fair election, and unfortunately they are located in several states that we are looking to win -- Philadelphia and Detroit, for example.
I'd say that means a closer race than Brexit, as far as the initial reports are concerned. There could be voter fraud and election theft involved if we lose Pennsylvania or Michigan (definitely if we lose Ohio). That would take awhile to resolve. But with all the preparation Trump and others have been doing to deal with those contingencies, there's not much else we can do or worry about.
As far as last-minute shocks, the GOP Establishment launched a failed coup with the hot mic tape and coordinated desertion. That's why Trump's numbers have been holding more or less even over the past week or so, when they should be entering the final upward phase of the wishy-washy cycle. I don't know whether that's better or worse than some wacko on the Leave side killing a Remain MP a week before the vote. And yet the Leave side survived that last-minute crisis.
What else can we say but buckle up and enjoy the end of this very close race.
* A later poll done weeks after the vote found youth turnout that was nearly double the estimate of the day-of poll. I dismiss that as the respondents lying about having voted, in order to not appear that they had shirked their civic duty to keep Britain in the EU. Young people were widely blamed when their minimal turnout was reported, giving them quite an incentive to lie about it weeks later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)