Monday, May 16, 2016

The Clintons are in trouble, con't

Several GOPe pols and pundits have already reluctantly fallen in line and expressed public support for Trump. More will continue to do so. Trump has now started in on Hillary and by what is already on offer, it's going to be a grueling six months for Crooked Hillary. Her stamina will definitely be tested.

I wonder if Bill even wants Hillary to get the nomination. It's not going to do his reputation any good. Most people under the age of 40 are not acquainted with the myriad ways Bill abused his power to satisfy his unrelentingly rapacious desires. Trump, Roger Stone, and many, many others will ensure that changes over the coming months.

Even if in his heart-of-hearts Bill doesn't want Hillary to get the nod, there probably isn't much he can do to prevent it at this point. I took his clash with BLM miscreants as possible evidence of sabotage, but I may have misread that.

Meanwhile, Hillary continues to be embarrassed by Sanders in state after state. In West Virginia, more people who voted for Sanders said they'd vote for Trump in the general than said they would vote for Hillary.

Appalachia is among the most favorable regions in the country for Trump, and many of these people were Trump supporters who, safe in the knowledge that Trump had the nomination locked up, decided to use their votes to sow discord in the Democrat party, but a not insignificant number of legitimately disaffected Sanders supporters will end up backing Trump in November.

Trump perspicaciously realizes as much. I've showcased some of that previously, but it's no one-and-done theme for the god emperor. Today he offered this:

In this environment, it's hard to see how the public perception of Hillary improves. Her favorability numbers are bumping along horizontally, no higher today than they were a month ago. Here they are, among likely general election voters:

Trump's, in contrast, are steadily climbing:

Again, at this point most general election voters are not engaged in nomination processes of either major party. Their perception of Trump the candidate is largely based on second-hand sources. As the nominations settle, this is already beginning to change. It will continue to do so. It's a shift I suspect will redound almost exclusively to Trump's benefit.


Southern Man said...

The press will run cover for the Clintons, as they always have. And Democrats are famous for supporting The Party No Matter What (there is no Republican equivalent for "Yellow Dog Democrat") and will vote for Clinton regardless of her history.

The Z Blog said...

It's a strange time. The Conservative Industrial Complex has now swung to the side of their supposed enemy and we're seeing the same sort of narrative reporting from them we're used to seeing from the progs. "Young voters prefer Clinton of Trump!" is the sort of headline popping up in "conservative" sites. Dig into the poll and you see Trump is actually doing better than most GOP'ers with young voters.

This does have an impact over time. My business partner said to me the other day, "The Wall Street Journal quoted a guy who got every state right last election saying Trump only has a 25% chance of winning." Of course, he was talking about Nate Silver and the Journal piece did not mention that Silver has blown this election thus far.

The temptation here is to say this will add up to keep Trump from breaking 45% in the polls. Then I think about Hillary Clinton on stage with Trump or out in one of her fake voices cackling at a rally. The only thing this woman is missing is the curse of turning anyone to stone who gazes upon her. Crooked Hillary may be the worst major party candidate in my lifetime.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Southern Male,

Hillary is a Democratic minority base turn out Presidential candidate in a Populist White Turn out election.

It isn't that she is bad, her technical campaign skills are better than the entire Republican field, INO, but both her and her skills are utterly inappropriate for the times.

Her feminist labeling this election cycle, immediately after Obama, wil do for Democrats with white males outside the South what Civil rights did for Democrats in the South.

That 'inappropriate candidate' choice will brand national Democrats for a generation or more.


Whenever you hear such stuff, simply point out the following:

1. Trump's leadership on Muslim immigration after both Paris and San Bernadino terrorist attacks won him the GOP nomination.

2. There will be one or more major ISIS terrorist attacks in Europe or the USA before the election in November 2016. What Trump said then, he will repeat, again.

3. As #2 happens, the media are going to look like Saddam's PR guy claiming Iraqi Army forces are winning as Abrams tanks roll through the Baghdad streets behind him.

chris said...

The question is, how can we then bring the hurt back to the media when Trump wins? Eradicate copyright laws for them? Institute laws that criminally punish lying in the press?

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Electing Trump will apply the hurt.

Speaking of Which, see how badly H. Cankles Clinton is doing with white men in swing states --

The election is nearly six months from now. And yes, it’s risky to place too much weight on any one poll. But the just-released Quinnipiac survey of three key swing states—Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio—challenges complacent assumptions and suggests that the election will be closely contested.

The conventional wisdom is that Donald Trump is massively unpopular among women and minorities. The Quinnipiac poll indicates that this is true. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee trails Hillary Clinton among non-white voters by 43 points in Florida, 60 points in Pennsylvania, and 62 points in Ohio. Mrs. Clinton leads among women by 13 points in Florida, 19 points in Pennsylvania, and 7 points in Ohio.

These findings are consistent with another piece of conventional wisdom—that Mrs. Clinton will comfortably defeat Mr. Trump this November. Unfortunately for her, that’s not what the survey finds. The two candidates are essentially tied in Florida and Pennsylvania; in Ohio, the New York billionaire holds a small 43-39 lead. It looks like a tough fight.

What’s going on?

In the first place, Mr. Trump enjoys a sizeable lead among white voters in all three states: 19 points in Florida, 11 points in Pennsylvania, and 17 points in Ohio. Not surprisingly, his edge among white men is even larger: 36 points in Florida, 32 in Pennsylvania, 29 in Ohio. Within the white electorate, gender matters. Mrs. Clinton does 15 points better among white women than men in Florida and 17 points in Pennsylvania, but notably, only 7 points better in Ohio, which helps explain why her overall standing among women is lower there than elsewhere.

Hillary to white working class men is like a cross to vampires.

Mil-Tech Bard said...


You have grounds for another "Hillary in Trouble" post.

Bernie is a better general election candidate for Democrats, because Bernie gets the Democratic White Male primary vote that crosses over to Trump for another chance to vote against Hillary.

See Morning Consult poll here:

This "White Working Class Male Identity Voting" will absolutely flip a 1/2 dozen Eastern and Midwestern "Purple" and "Blue" states to "Trump Red" in the General election.

Every Blue or Purple state with 70-to-75% white population is now possible "Trump Wave election" territory.

Audacious Epigone said...

Southern Man,

The major media are mere shadows of what they were in the nineties. Trump, through social media, has a larger audience at any given time than Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC combined.

I suspect the Democrat defection rate will be around 10%. Despite the #NeverTrump protestations to the contrary, it'll be higher than the Republican defection rate will be.


Of course the Wall Street Journal didn't mention that, and if professional journalism was something other than a joke writ large it would've mentioned that Silver also said that Trump had a 5% chance of winning the Republican nomination! So he gives Trump a 500% better shot at winning the presidency than he did the nomination. Shoo-in!


He has an elephantine memory for personal slights. He made a point of saying, at one of the debates, that sometimes he's too trusting of people but once someone burns him, he never forgets. They'll be getting dishes, served cold.

Mil-Tech Bard again,

This is why I have a suspicion that Hillary is going to feel forced into giving Bernie the VP spot. The markets see that as more likely than they did a month ago, but he's still not the favorite. To the contrary, his odds are 1:8. Are the Clintons really that vindictive?

If Hillary picks some unproven token minority shlub like Julian Castro and Trump goes for a competent, non-affirmative action choice like Jim Webb, Jeff Sessions, or even Newt Gingrich, a 65%-35% white vote advantage in the general seems achievable.

Anonymous said...

Hillary favorables will go up once she clinches the nomination. It's happening for Trump now.

This is a fact that happens with every candidate. Don't underestimate her.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

>>Hillary favorables will go up once she clinches the nomination.

Not with Democrats, if Hillary is "Feeling the Bern."

Trump will see to it that independent Millennials won't.

Bill Clinton's trips on "Pedo-Force One" to Epstein's Pedo-Island will be all the heck over the campaign news between now and November 2016, unless she drops out, drops dead, or is indicted.

Mil-Tech Bard said...


Via Gatewaypundit --

>>Hillary won the Kentucky primary in 2008 with 459,511 votes.
>>With 99% of precincts reporting — Hillary has 212,549 votes
>>to Bernie’s 210,626 votes.

So Hillary had roughly 246,962 fewer votes in 2016 than in 2008.

And the Hillary's votes in Kentucky in 2016 were disproportionately black compared to almost none (4% to 8%) versus Obama in 2008.

Would it be fair to say that Hillary 2016 lost four fifths of the Democratic White Male vote she had in 2008?

Anonymous said...

AE -

How long did it take for your MAGA hat to arrive? I ordered mine from the Trump website a week ago, still waiting. I know I know, should've ordered it long ago. I don't really wear hats, but clearly that needs to change.

Hopefully the slowness is a sign that American hat production capacity is being stressed to the breaking point.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mil-Tech Bard,

I tracked voter totals for Hillary-Obama in 2008. There are more states without exit polls this time around, though, so it'd be harder to get an exact figure but it would be interesting to see the states that have exit polling in both '08 and '16 and compare the decline in white votes, and also in total votes. Even though Hillary is going to win this time around, she's going to get fewer actual votes than she did when she lost in '08.

It's a great post idea. I'm on it, thanks.


I ordered mine in mid-October. After two weeks, I got a similar email saying that they were backlogged on production requests. I responded saying I wanted my hat by Thanksgiving and had a pretty fun back and forth with whoever was manning the online shop account. It ended up taking right at a month.

My MAGA hat aside, I rarely wear hats and never wear ball caps. But I've had a blast with this accessory.

Mil-Tech Bard said...


Trump Preference Cascade, General Election edition, Arriving.


Mil-Tech Bard said...

Audacious Epigone,

For the "post idea," I ran across this and found it darned interesting and very related.

This is a Canadian anthropologist looking at the American election and giving 13 reasons he sees Trump winning. It has lots of charts and graphs that are up your alley.

Audacious Epigone said...

M-T B,

I can't get the page to open.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

I just tested the page at two diffewrent computers at home. It works fin in both Chrome and Fir.efox.

Try the link in Google and use the google cache rather than the page link

Audacious Epigone said...

M-T B,

Got it. Good, accessible summary, thanks.