Tuesday, November 01, 2016

Pour it on

The latest from the three daily tracking polls have Trump +1 (ABC), Trump +4 (LAT/USC), and Clinton +1 (IBD).

Even with all the questionable assumptions and outright rigging that have characterized election polling this cycle, RCP averages now have Trump winning the electoral college if he can flip North Carolina (which Romney won in '12 and for which the latest poll to come out has Trump +7), and Michigan (which RCP had Hillary winning by a staggering 21 points during the Democratic primary but that Bernie actually won--the most mis-polled state in decades).

Trump is finally opening up the campaign war chest with a $25 million ad blitz in several states putatively considered safe bets for Hillary. We're in the final stretch. Now is the time to pour it on.

The fence-sitting cucks will come on their own if they're going to. Probably better to try and dissuade sincere progressives who are planning on an unenthusiastic "lesser-of-two-evils" Hillary vote. They won't be peeled off to vote for Trump, but they are susceptible to staying home or voting third-party.

I've been spreading the following around in social media outlets. The purpose is rhetorical. Feel free to share freely.

---

It's not just the alternative media on the right that is rising from the ashes of the corrupt lapdog "journalists" in dinosaur organizations like, to pick a random example, CNN. Here are the Young Turks--more-or-less the Info Wars of the left--breaking news on Hillary Clinton being fed questions in a town hall against Trump:



Hillary didn't legitimately win any of the debates--in the primaries or in the general election--she cheated her way through. Notice at 3:31 in the video, when the camera cuts to Hillary, she's looking down at her notes. She was clearly doing so while the question was being asked as well because she was reviewing her notes on how she was going to answer the question that Brazile fed to her beforehand.

While we attack the power structure from the right, it's encouraging to see the Jill Steins and Young Turks attacking it from the left.

Hillary is the most corrupt presidential candidate in US history. The Nixons and the LBJs of American history don't even come close.

We all would've preferred the election to be between Trump and Sanders. Heads-we-win, tails-you-lose. It can still be win-win, though. This is the best chance in decades that a third-party has had to qualify for federal election campaign funds next go-round. If Jill Stein gets 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party gets over $30 million in federal funding to spend in 2020.

18 comments:

The Z Blog said...

It appears Clinton's polls in Virginia are collapsing. Most recent poll out of Wisconsin has her lead cut in half, down to 4-points. That was 10/30 so the latest trouble is not in those numbers. Recent polling form PA has a 2-point race. Michigan is listed as 7-points. Given the recent history there, I think we just ignore all data from MI, other than the fact both camps are running ads and events.

In total, the ground is shifting quickly. What were are seeing is Clinton capped at 45% and Trump slowly gathering up the independents, the petulant and the undecided. This is not outside the pattern we saw in the primaries. There's a capitulation that occurs within the last ten days.

What will be interesting to watch is the so-called hidden vote. The volume of new registrations is similar to what happened in 2008. Pollsters only picked that up late. Maybe that's what's happening now. Or, maybe Trump outperforms his polls, as the polling was too late to the game. Maybe the surge in new registrations is the machine rigging the vote.

Black Death said...

This is the most interesting election of my lifetime (and I'm a Baby Boomer). So many different themes and currents - where to begin?

If Hillary wins, the scandals will only get worse. Hillary is easily the most corrupt presidential candidate in history - sort of like Boss Tweed running for the White House. The GOP-controlled House will hold nonstop hearings into all this awful stuff - Watergate may look tame in comparison. If Trump wins, it will be interesting to see how he handles the probably Democrat-controlled Senate and the GOPe-controlled House, whose leadership will not be his friends. I wonder if they will reconcile themselves to a President Trump? Will a Trump victory result in a new, unified GOP, or will they continue to bicker? Whatever happens, we are living in interesting times.

Jill Stein is a typical nutty greenie. Lots of hypocrisy, too - the Daily Beast has found that she has indirectly invested large sums in Big Carbon, Big Banks, Big Pharma and Big Defense. Sort of like Al Gore with his giant power-sucking house, heated swimming pool and private jet. I hope Jill passes the 5% threshold, as the Green Party will suck votes away from the Dems.

I have a friend, an American, who has lived in Berlin for the last two decades. He is an astute observer of the German political scene. He maintains that the German Left can be divided into two categories - those who support the goofy policies mostly for personal gain (the majority), and those who believe that, if they just keep tinkering with the system, one day they will finally get it right and a socialist paradise will suddenly happen. I think I see the same thing emerging here.

Cicatrizatic said...

The media and the Hillary camp continue to be confident that she'll win FL. But the numbers paint a different picture.

In 2012, Democrats ended up with +3 lead in the combined totals for absentee ballots and early voting. Republicans led absentee ballots, but Democrats led early voting by a huge margin, and the combined margin was +3. Obama ended up only winning FL by 0.9%.

Right now, the Republicans lead the combined absentee + early vote total by 0.4%. According to NBC/WSJ's poll of Florida, Florida voters on election day will got Trump +11. ABC's national poll reports that nationally, election day voters will go Trump +12. The latest CNN poll of Florida has Trump winning Independents by 9. Obama won FL Independents by 3 in 2012.

Based on current pace, it looks like absentee ballots + early voting will be about 65% of the votes in FL, and election day voting will be about 35%. If the NBC/WSJ poll is accurate, then for Democrats to win FL, they'll need to open up a large lead in the combined absentee + early votes, to the tune of 5 or 6%.

Cicatrizatic said...

Similar picture for NC. Democrats are trailing their early voting pace from 2012. Republicans are exceeding it, and early votes by Independents are up 40% versus 2012. Democrats lost NC in 2012, and thus would need to beat their 2012 early vote performance to win the state, unless they are going to do unexpectedly well on election day.

The last two polls of NC, taken during and after the FBI news, are Trump +2 and Trump +7.

Ohio and Iowa have been for Trump for a while now.

I think it's down to NV, CO, PA, and NH. I think MI is going to be unexpectedly close as well.

Audacious Epigone said...

Z,

You've maintained since the beginning that Hillary would, optimistically, cap out at 45% and that it would be up to Trump to exceed her ceiling. If he did, he'd win.

Let me know if I'm mischaracterizing that but it's looking more and more like you nailed the broad strokes perfectly.

Black Death,

It'll be interesting to look at down ballot votes compared to Trump's by state. In districts where winning Republican congress critters and Trump are close or Trump exceeds the critters, it's hard to imagine said critters not lining up with the Trump administration's agenda, especially in the first two years ahead of the 2018 mid-terms. I suspect Trump will use the bully pulpit to shine a spotlight on House members on the Republican side who obstruct him. He certainly should do so.

Cicatrizatic,

Early + absentee comprises 2/3rds of the total vote in FL? Where should I be looking in depth for this? Team Hillary's early announcement that the Hispanic early voting turnout was twice what it was in 2012 sounded like foreknowledge of ballot rigging to me. Markets have Florida as a coin toss atm.

Cicatrizatic said...

The Florida Division of Elections updates the absentee + early ballot numbers every day here:

https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Hillary's Hail Mary, the woman who claimed to have been raped by Trump when she was 13 years old, declined to show up to Gloria Allred's daughter's press conference. It's unlikely that it would have worked and it doesn't mean they can't hold it sometime between now and the 8th but this was probably their last shot at changing the narrative from the constant barrage of bad news that Hillary's campaign is facing.

With the LA Times poll now showing a 5.4 Trump lead over Hillary as of yesterday, if the numbers continue to climb and normalize, we can expect it to end up around 6.5 to 7.5 points overall, enough to claim states like Michigan, Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and likely New Hampshire. Another poll has Trump up by three in Virginia but we'll see how that goes. Overall Trump should get at least 300 electoral votes, with over 320 likely if he keeps making gains in reputable polls like the LA Times.

In states that Trump loses, I want it to be uncomfortably close, close enough to rattle the confidence in Democrats in Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, etc. We need to keep on these states so in 2020 they can flip to Trump.

Audacious Epigone said...

Cicatrizatic,

Thanks.

Why do early votes lean Dem? It seems to be the default pattern. Reps' conscientiousness is presumably higher on average.

Random Dude,

He's hitting all of those states. You've got the playbook.

Cicatrizatic said...

Audacious:

I am no expert, but I think the early voting is a huge Democrat/black/community organizer operation. For instance, last Sunday was the "Souls to the Polls" day in the south, where, after church is over, black congregations walk down to the ballot box together and vote Democrat. It's also a time where Democrats go around pushing young college voters to the polls.

Because most Republicans have jobs, I think on average more Republicans just wait till election day.

The good news for FL: over night, the Dems have not taken the lead in the combined absentee + early vote numbers. They slightly cut into the Republican lead, but in order to win they are going to quicken their place rapidly. By Monday, I do think the Democrats will have taken a slight lead, but with the polling information on FL election day voters, time is running out quickly.

Audacious Epigone said...

Cicatrizatic,

I say that but in the case of Florida it doesn't even look like it's quite the case. Republicans are slightly ahead in voted by mail+voted early. And assuming Trump will win the unaffiliated since he's up among independents everywhere, the 800k+ who aren't registered with either party should mean Trump is clearly ahead in the early voting.

Black Death said...

According to this report, both ex-presidents Bush are voting for Hillary. How disgusting. Time to clense the temple of these cuxers and bring in a new GOP.

The Z Blog said...

Yes, I think her whole strategy is based on depressing the anti-Clinton vote, boosting the third party options and winning with a plurality of the vote. The reason for that is she never breaks 45% and even in good states her numbers are below Obama.

That's the thing I don't understand. When they report on things like black turnout, early voting, new party registrations, etc., we never see Clinton out-performing Obama 2012. She is always a click lower. Yet, we're told she is winning in states like Virginia and North Carolina by huge margins relative to Obama 2012.

Look. I'm cautiously optimist about Trump winning, but if Clinton wins, either the internals on these polls are not as reported or none of those metrics matter. It's just hard to square that we have higher than normal turnout, lower enthusiasm for the Democrat and Trump is training by five points.

Audacious Epigone said...

Black Death,

That only increases Trump's voter appeal.

Sid said...

"She is always a click lower. Yet, we're told she is winning in states like Virginia and North Carolina by huge margins relative to Obama 2012."

I think part of it is that Trump turns off college educated whites. Call them cucks, but college educated whites don't think that Trump helps them economically, the way they thought Romney did.

That's the one weakness of the Sailer Strategy: if you appeal to blue collar whites, you turn off the white collar ones, and vice versa. In places like Virginia and North Carolina, where large numbers of college educated Yanks have moved in and set shop, turning them off can make the race a lot closer than in previous decades. (Conversely, Wisconsin and Michigan were not states the Democrats had to worry about.)

One reason why Obama was a better campaigner than Hillary was that he could construct the Coalition of the Fringes, while also making compelling arguments to rival demographics. It's weird how the Democrats don't remember just how vociferously the Obama campaign condemned Romney's offshoring. http://youtu.be/sL4QdzGkZM4

If you were a blue collar white, sure, Obama wasn't doing you good, but you couldn't be excited about Romney either. They were both globalists with some marginal differences. Granted, Obama would go on to support TPP, so it's clear his rhetoric was insincere, but during the campaign, Obama had a strong message to every constituency in the US.

What made Trump more possible than anything else was how Democrats made it abundantly clear to all whites after the election that whites would endure The Great Replacement and be thrown into the demographic trash bin if history. Since then, Hillary has only focused on You-Go-Girlism and aggrieved minorities. Trump took Obama's message to blue collar whites and ran with it.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Well put. Several of Hillary's social media posts are in Spanish exclusively. It's little wonder she is barely getting one-fourth of blue collar white support. Easy to forget that Bill Clinton won blue collar whites.

Romney, however, won college educated whites comfortably. Polls show Trump and Hillary basically at parity among them.

One aspect of the realignment that is taking place is how it is less geographically distributed. Red states are becoming less red and blue states less blue this time around. It's a natural consequence of getting away from the Culture War and into the populist-v-globalist dynamic.

Sid said...

"It's a natural consequence of getting away from the Culture War and into the populist-v-globalist dynamic."

I think that college educated whites are the most conflicted about this dynamic, which can be seen in how Hillary and Trump have split the demographic.

If you're a college educated white, you've been trained your whole life to not put any value in your racial identity, because doing so will at best make you a supporter of slavery and at worst a Nazi. But SJWs have made it clear that they regard you as their great enemy. They took your two favorite movie series from your childhood, Star Wars and Ghostbusters, and turned them into social justice fests, for God's sake.

You might not like Mexican neighborhoods, but you couldn't have gotten your kitchen remodeled without them. Your grandparents sure didn't have the means for remodelling. You might not like seeing Made in China on everything you buy, but Econ 101 taught you that outsourcing benefits the consumers of importing countries.

I think the second most conflicted group will be blacks. It looks like Trump will get twice the black vote Romney got - still a small number, but the significance is great. Black people want their Affirmative Action, welfare and various subsidies, which has made them loyal Democrats... until Democrats started issuing those same goodies to new immigrants. Blacks didn't vote for Sanders in large part because Sanders espoused an egalitarian socialism which would have helped poor whites, whereas blacks want socialism for themselves and Social Darwinism for everyone else. Look at the black woman defending Trump's star in LA: she likes Trump because he will keep illegal immigrants from absorbing what she thinks ought to go to her community.

Hispanic citizens may also end up in a similar situation as blacks. Sure, they like what the Democrats are offering, but they don't like how Democrats keep on offering those goodies to more and more people. People ask me why there are Hispanics who vote Trump, and I say, "The same reason you're not voting for him. You want to prove that you're better than those low class rednecks. Hispanic citizens often want to prove they're not those dirty illegals by voting Republican."

Say what you will about demographics, but Republicans can remain a viable political party for awhile by appealing to 60-70% of whites, 20-30% of blacks and 30-40% of Hispanics by saying, "We have a finite amount of resources for social spending. Do you want the spending to be for you, or for more Muslim refugees?"

I don't like this dynamic. I voted for Ron Paul in the 2012 primaries. I like the idea of a libertarian society, and I realize that the more demographics change in the US, the farther we'll be away from the ideal of a Jeffersonian, self-governing citizenry. But we have to make the best of what we have, regardless of what happens on Tuesday. (I'm putting Trump's chances at 70%, so our fight needn't be so dismal.)

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Well put, thanks. This is essentially the Sailer "Citizenism" strategy, and it's the more optimistic path we follow in the future. I think the political dissolution of the United States will happen instead, and will happen much quicker than many people realize, within the next couple of decades.

Anonymous said...

The most cunning way to sway voters away from Hillary is to tell them how many awful schemes and and how much corruption she is involved in, while eulogizing Jill Stein.

This is not an efficacious social media strategy probably, but may work with real-life acquaintances.