Tuesday, May 10, 2016

The Clintons are in trouble

Three battleground state polls were released today by Quinnipiac:

Obama swept Romney in all of them. If Trump flips Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, and the rest of the electoral map remains the same as 2012, Trump wins.

Trump is now incorporating the Hillary-as-a-rape-enabler-and-apologist spiel into his campaign events.

Hillary just got embarrassed by Sanders yet again. With over 80% of the results in as of this writing, it looks like he's going to win every single county in West Virginia.

Over the last couple of months, Trump has been significantly outpeforming his polling averages.

Additionally, these poll samples are based on turnout in previous presidential cycles [edit: They are based on adult population as determined by "recent Census or American Community Survey data"]. The general election in November will be less black and more working-class white than either 2008 or 2012 were, and so also less black and more working-class than these polls assume. Both of these things will benefit Trump.

Those who think this is in the bag for Hillary--we're looking at you, Nate--should reconsider, less they find themselves without a shred of credibility left when they sit down for Thanksgiving dinner.


Mil-Tech Bard said...

The key Trump metric before Cleveland is his total GOP primary vote. Right now Trump is at 10.89 million votes

Bush got 10.8 million primary votes in 2000 when the US population was 282 milllion.

Trump would have to get more than 12.4 million this year, with 324 million Americans, to beat that proportionately.

I.e., if it is less than 12.4 million, then Trump's primary turnout this year is mostly to GOP voter participation returning to its pre-Obama level.

If GOP turn out is significantly over 12.4 million, then we are in completely different political territory.

As for the general election, Democrats are delusional about the immigration issue and in particular how Trump can use it to reach black voters.

See this from Feb 2016 --

Donald Trump’s latest ad features father of teen killed by an illegal immigrant

By Jenna Johnson February 13 at 11:35 AM

Republican front-runner Donald Trump's new ad, "Jamiel," focuses on illegal immigration. (Donald Trump)

TAMPA — Donald Trump's latest campaign ad starts with the photo of an African American teenager in a football jersey, grinning for the camera and holding a football.

“Jas Shaw was a 17-year-old football star who was gunned just outside his home,” a narrator says as the words “gunned down” appear in white bold letters against a red background on top of the photo. “His killer? An illegal immigrant gang member who just got out of prison.”

The 30-second ad, which will soon air in South Carolina ahead of the Feb. 20 Republican primary, features Jas Shaw’s father, Jamiel Shaw, who has endorsed Trump for president and appeared on the campaign trail with him. In the ad, Shaw says Trump is the only candidate who will end illegal immigration.

Jamiel Shaw and his murdered by an illegal son Jas are African-American.

Trump is using illegal alien crime, and the disproportionate the victimization of African-Americans by illegals, as a wedge issue against Democrats.

Targeting Democrats as weak on crime is traditional. Using illegal crime versus African-Americans is not.

Crime by illegals against African-Americans is a proportionately greater simply based on where illegals settle. And the issue has been there for decades.

Only someoue outside and not beholden to the Open Borders GOP Donor class can make use of it as an issue.

Hillary is going to have a very rough time with this as Trump will use black-owned media companies, as well as the internet, to reach African-Americans audiences.

Black urban radio advertising is relatively cheap and the simple fact of Trump buying there will drive up Democratic ad spending on a supply and demand basis.

If Trump gets 10% of the black vote, he swings a 1/2 dozen states in the south, East Coast and Mid-West.

If Trump gets over 15% of the black vote, we are in 1984 Reagan land slide territory.

Mil-Tech Bard said...


Make that 10,988,203 Trump GOP Primary votes.



The Crumudgeon said...

>Bush got 10.8 million primary votes in 2000 when the US population was 282 milllion.<

And of course Trump was initially running against 16 other candidates. Bush started the primaries with 5 opponents, all but one of whom had dropped out by 9 March. So the vote was concentrated on Bush.

Frank Gappa said...

I don't think you can count on more than 5-7% black vote for Trump.

Mil-Tech Bard said...


One of the more interesting cross tabs in one of the Tampa Bay media poll in the run up to the Florida GOP primary was the fact that working class black males ages 25-45 were supporting Trump at the same rates as working class white males.

I took that to mean employed black males of that age range.

That is important for a number of reasons, beyond getting Trump over 7% of the black vote.

The refusal of billionaire elites to share with the American middle class the social costs of both "Open Borders" immigration and so-called "Free Trade" policies made this Trump populist voter revolt inevitable.

Trump's political leadership is reshaping the Republican Party into a working to middle class identity dominated political party.

A lot of African Americans aspire to that identity.

Trump is the first viable national level closed borders & anti-corporate "free trade" Presidential candidate since Sen. Teddy Kennedy opened the borders in 1964. That 52 year candidate gap allows Trump to call non-voters to his banner like a mage calling up an army of hill trolls from barren rock.

Trump's GOP Primary remake means if you don't get with the interests of the working & middle classes -- closed borders, strong military/neo-isolationism to secure Americans at home and a nationalist as opposed to corporatist trade protection -- you are going to lose Republican primaries.

There will be a real party brand difference with the plutocrats owning the Democrats, but no longer the Republicans.

There is no precedent in the lives of anyone living for what is coming. And the elites are plug ignorant, uneducated and to arrogant to learn about American history during the time of Andrew Jackson, and the destruction of the 2nd Bank of the United States, to be aware of the cultural template for what's coming.

Anonymous said...

A/E an interesting metric will be GOP voter turnout in California.

If Trump turns them out in greater numbers there that points positive towards the General for Trump.

Yes I'm a Trumper.

I'm not saying CA is competitive in the General.* I'm saying voter turnout in CA for Trump is an interesting future metric.

*no need to share political pron fantasies. Unless one must ;)


Anonymous said...

Quinnipiac actually did adjust for the race turnout differences you describe, AE. I assume they did it for the reasons you describe as well.

The liberal shrieks were completely up in arms about this poll because Q gave the White vote a bump and ticked down the Black vote compared to 2012, so they declared these QPolls completely biased and unreliable. As if they think they're running Obama every year. They're sad people.

SeanF said...

@Mil-Tech Bard - see The Curmudgeon's comment. I like your metric, but it's not enough. Somewhere between overall GOP Primary turnout, and the specific Trump-voting portion of that turnout, lies the true metric of newfound GOP enthusiasm to be reflected for Trump in November.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mil-Tech Bard,

He's had the father on stage at several of his rallies. He's going to have to put a little money behind for it to be salient among blacks though. The latest Reuters-Ipsos poll among likely voters, which shows Hillary and Trump tied (41%-40%), only has Trump getting 6% of black support, right smack in the middle of Frank's range. An early SurveyUSA poll showed Trump getting 25% but that was several months ago, probably before a lot of those blacks knew Trump was running as a Republican.

A few things regarding turnout:

- Colorado and North Dakota didn't vote. Those obviously weren't Trump strongholds and they're not heavily populated states but that makes Trump's total marginally more impressive still.

- The '16 to '12 and '08 comparisons have to be more telling when they're apples-to-apples comparisons in terms of being competitive, don't they? Or are the west coast numbers going to be indicative of voter unity, the higher the Trump number the more likely traditional Republican voters are to join the legions of new people Trump is bringing out in November?


California doesn't need to be competitive! Trump needs to hold Romney's states, win Florida, and then win Pennsylvania and either Ohio or Michigan.

As an aside, if the map stays the same as 2012 except Trump picks up Florida, Ohio, and Michigan (instead of Pennsylvania), it's a 269-269 electoral tie.


Where are you seeing that? I read the nine-page release on the findings from all three polls and didn't see any crosstab or sample demographic data. It must be coming from another source.


The primaries may come too early to get a real sense of how it'll end up playing out. If Trump does really well, though, then there is no reason to think that won't carry through to the general election. If it's not spectacular, he'll still have time to make it happen.

Anonymous said...


I got the demographic data from here: https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2345

All the way to the bottom, there is a link for "Sample and Methodology Detail".

Mil-Tech Bard said...


When you go to the Quinnipiac poll Florida cross tabs for "non-white voters" willing to vote Trump, it is at 20%.

Ohio and Pennsylvania "non-white" voters are both at 14%.

This 20% number is right in the range of the GOP primary polls in February 2016.

Black working class men who are in high immigration impact areas are voting differently than blacks elsewhere.

That won't make a difference in California. It will in Florida.

The key strategy metric to look for WRT Trump black urban radio buys will be ad placement in Florida media markets.

A secondary metric will be Trump Black Urban radio buys in Philadelphia. This wouldn't be so much to get black votes as to limit disproportionate black turn out

Audacious Epigone said...


In Florida, the unweighted white sample is 76% of the total and the unweighted non-white sample is 24%. Quinnipiac adjusts it to 69% and 30%, respectively.

In Ohio and Pennsylvania the stories are similar, with greater unweighted white samples and adjustments to increase the non-white representation in the actual poll results.

The methodology makes it sound like adjusted samples are intended to mirror the adult population, which presumably means blacks and whites are underrepresented and Hispanics and Asians are overrepresented (since eligible blacks and whites are substantially more likely to vote than eligible Hispanics and Asians are).

Anonymous said...


I was only comparing the finally weighted numbers to the exit polls for the 2012 election. So in Florida for example, Whites were 67% of the electorate in 2012. By weighting them to 69% in 2016, Qunnipiac would seem to be baking in a small bump in the White vote. Am I off base here?

Audacious Epigone said...


No, you're not. The poll doesn't project voter change, it just uses census population survey data which appears to be amounting to a presumed modest decrease in black turnout as a percentage of total turnout. I'll include an update to the body of the post. Thanks.