Monday, August 22, 2016

Republicans gaining registered voters in key battleground states

Florida - GOP has gained 70,000 more voters than Democrats this year, and cut the Democratic Party advantage by about 250,000 since 2012.

Pennsylvania - More than 85,000 former Democrats are now registered Republicans, and the Democratic registration advantage as been cut by around 200,000 since 2012.

North Carolina - Large rise in Independent voter status has been a major factor in North Carolina. Neither Party seems to be gaining. However, the GOP has remained nearly constant, while the Democratic registration has lost about 200,000 voters.

Iowa - Democrats are said to have lost all of their 100,000 voter edge that they enjoyed in the 2012 election.

Democrats gained in smaller numbers in Colorado (39,000), Nevada (9000),  Arizona (14,000), and New Mexico (no number given).  But according to Politico, the Republicans have a clear overall advantage in the eight battle ground states they looked at.

One of the biggest problems for the Democrats has been their inability to register new Hispanic voters. Hispanics typically turn out at less than 50% nationally, and seem reluctant to get engaged in the political process.  Democrats have (quite obviously) been playing to that audience, possibly at the expense of other voters. Giving up the bird in hand strategy may backfire, if they cannot collect on the two in the bush.

On all fronts, it appears that the Democratic Party is well behind the rates they were at in 2008 and 2012, when they splashed big in new voter registration. Once can only speculate, but certainly it appears that Hillary Clinton is no Barack Obama when it comes to exciting voters.

_______

Now why this is relevant is important. The Democrats seem to believe in the changing Demographic strategy of simply "waiting" till all the old white people die off and are replaced with a more diverse and younger set of voters that will most assuredly be more liberal. Problem is that this theory has been a much better theory than an actual tangible phenomenon.

To put this in perspective:

  • In 2014, Republicans made up a larger share of the electorate than Democrats (36% to 35%). This was an improvement over 2010. 
  • In 2012,  Democrats enjoyed a six point advantage in voter turnout (38-32) - but this was a three point improvement for the Republicans over 2008. 
  • In 2010, Republicans matched their 2006 showing, which showed a slight Democratic advantage at (38-36)  

This is three elections in a row where the Democrats have failed to gain any Demographic ground from the previous election (Presidential to Presidential / mid term to mid term). A this point there is little statistical reason to believe that 2016 will be better for them than 2012.

This is one of those mathematical/statistical realities that seem to run 180 degrees counter to the narrative being spun by your Main Stream Media, who insist that the voting Demographics have been slowly but surely changing for the better for Democrats. Other than in 2008 (where Obama brought in a ton of new voters) - this has been more wishful punditry than fact.

73 comments:

KD, Woodward spanks hillary said...

Remember when Opium, Jane and HyperBolic told us that the Email Server story had NO LEGS.

When she attempted over the weekend to now shift the blame to Colin Powell a highly decorated US Army General and former Sectary of State, that was just plain stupid, why did she blame the black guy?

Then we get this:

"Mr. Woodward said the Democratic presidential nominee has made light of something that he considers a “very serious issue.”

“So many unanswered questions,” he said. “Let’s face it, Hillary Clinton just has not come totally clean on this. And she would serve herself well if she would do that.”


That is WaterGate Fame Woodward calling out Hillbilly.

When does she ever tell the truth?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Returning to ground level, however, suppose Trump wins all the Romney states (206 EVs, which includes North Carolina and NE-2) and he adds Florida, Ohio, and Iowa. Trump will be at 259, still short 11 EVs. It isn’t at all obvious where the extra 11 would come from, though the easiest path might be Nevada (six EVs) and New Hampshire (four) to produce a 269-269 tie. Presumably, the House of Representatives will remain Republican and at least 26 states will have a unit vote in favor of the GOP and Trump. Presumably. Or will there be defections in a few strategically placed states?

And wait — didn’t we just change New Hampshire to Likely Democratic? Daydreams and nightmares don’t last long in the August hothouse of 2016.

Larry Sabato. You have seen his map. The RCP and the fivethirtyeight maps, and not one of them comes close to your opinion.

Sometimes, this page looks like The Onion.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - When two/three weeks ago... national polling was showing Clinton with double digit leads, with averages between 7-9 points depending on who was averaging...

And this past week, the bulk of the polls show the polls show it between a small Trump lead and a four point Hillary lead, and her average lead has been sinking fast.

Do you really believe that this happens in a vacuum that doesn't include the battleground states?

The major differences is while you see six, seven, eight or more National polls released each week, you only see one or two in the battle ground states. It simply takes time for everything to catch up.

Not to mention, I have literally not heard of half the pollsters who are polling these states. So who the hell knows how accurate they are. It's part of the reason someone like Nate Silver literally adjusts the results of each of these pollsters. These are polls taken with sometimes as few as 400-500 people in the sample. State polling has never been as accurate as National polling (look at how often the polling leader lost in the two primaries this year - sometimes by margins that had the state polling off by double digits).

State polling will matter more to me, once the National polling has settled into something resembling some order. Right now, we are still seeing giant shifts that I don't believe will continue for the next 10-12 weeks.



What I can tell you is that if either of these candidates win the Popular vote by two percent or more, there is a 90% (or better) chance that they also win the Electoral College.

Unless you run into a 2000, where they were within a few hundred thousand nationally and within a few hundred in one state... you will not likely see the popular vote winner lose the electoral college.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Since launching his presidential candidacy 14 months ago, Donald Trump's most consistent and uncompromising racist bs has been immigration. It was the subject of his first general-election TV ad that started airing on Friday. Yet over the weekend, his top aides and advisers suggested that Trump might be shifting on his past position that all of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States must be deported forcibly.

You ignore that this is going to weaken his majority of racist supporters. You can keep cherry picking, to keep your audience happy, but it's not going to get the nut job into the White House.

C.H. Truth said...

Actually Roger...

I expect a lot of this. Trump hasn't called for deportation of all 11 million people (at least not in a long, long, while). Neither is he still proposing any sort of ban on Muslims (and hasn't for a long, long, while).

His immigration policy is spelled out on his website, as is his stance on refugees. Automatic deportation of criminal aliens, shutting down of sanctuary cities, and securing the borders (including detainment of people trying to sneak across the border) are popular measures. They are neither extreme or racist or anything you want to call them.

Same with the "extreme vetting" for refugees from countries that harbor terrorists. Better vetting of refugees from the Middle East is another popular idea. Again, neither extreme, unconstitutional, or unprecedented.

The very legal description of a refugee is someone seeking relief from oppression or threats of violence. Political refugees and religious refugees are historically the most common types. In other words, by our own laws regarding refugees we are not only "allowed' to take religion into consideration, sometimes it's the only consideration. If Christians are being singled out and executed in Syria (for instance) because they are Christians... then it would be our legal responsibility (according to our own refugee laws) to single them out to take them in first. Of course, could you see the field day that our liberal press would have with us actually following those laws.


The Reality is that Donald Trump doesn't hold the positions much of your left wing media is demanding he does. When his own advertising and his stump speeches start to make this clear, how long can the media get away with suggesting he is "shifting his position" or that he really still wants to deport 20 million people and ban all Muslims.

Eventually Roger... as someone who claims to be some sort of pundit, you may want to take in one of Trump's speeches, or read his website to find out what his views are.

You are not worth much salt, if all you do is garner your information on Trump from Politico, Washington Post, NY Times, and the rest of the liberal MSM. It's almost all misrepresentations mixed in with outright lies.

Myballs said...

Wiki leaks is out with another email drop proving Obama and Hillary both supported Isis in 2012...... when they were in formation. Just like Trump said.

Obama funded them in opposition to Assad. Hillary received $100,000 and was a director of a company that financed Isis.

Meanwhile Hillary's would be chief of staff had been exposed as author of anti - women pro-sharia magazine articles while working for the liar when she was senator.

Will the media cover any of this? Or will we get another week if Ryan lochte?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The thing I find the most entertaining, is your insistence that the evil media has been ignoring what you think is important. You can't blame the "go fucking yourself" candidate.

C.H. Truth said...

The thing I find less than entertaining...

Is that you actually "trust" the media to do your research, your analysis, and your thinking for you.

The difference between you and I Roger... is if I want to know what Trump (or any candidate) is saying, or what they are proposing, I will listen to them or check their website.

You, garner that information from Politico and the Washington Post. It's like you simply taking the Washington Post at it's word, when they told you that no candidate behind on Labor day has ever gone on to win the Presidency.

When it took me about 15 minutes of my own actual research to prove that claim incorrect. It's about you being gullible to believe what makes you feel good (cognitive dissonance) and me checking a fact before I accept it as a fact.

KD, The Left Loves Wealth said...

HB is perfectly content with not covering Hillary, the less people know or she her the better she does.

Remember she is for the little guy, while being entertained by the top 1 % at Martha Vineyard.

Wonder what her and Obama talked about during their long weekend at Martha'S Vineyard?

Trump was in LA passing out a semi truck load of needed supply to those in need, you know, that guy.

Anonymous said...

Will the media cover any of this? Or will we get another week if Ryan lochte?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

no they won't cover it, and yes, we'll continue to see the lochte story for as long as the media needs the diversion.

milwaukee was barely covered, the louisiana floods have been largely ignored, the FBI has discovered an ADDITIONAL 15,000 emails, and any story that has the chance of being harmful to the queen of the cankles or 0linsky will receive nary a mention.


NRO's jim geraghty makes a great point -

this campaign isn't trump vs. hillary, it's trump vs. the media. and the media IS hillary's campaign. for chrissakes, the WaPo is already running fawning stories describing how the clinton campaign is in the process of drafting her white house agenda:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/With_a_comfortable_lead_Clinton_begins_laying_plans_for_her_White_House_agenda.html

the media is behaving like the election is a foregone conclusion and election day is a mere formality.

it's disgusting.


KD, O'Hillary Care Melting like a bad Nuke Plant said...

CHT I understand IF you don't allow this to be published here, but, I ask that you do.
Remember Hillary, Obama , Ried and Polosi told us time and again, we that pay for our own policies will see a $2,500 premium drop, I for one have seen only rises. They told us that ObamaCare, based upon HillaryCare will bring us all lower prices thru greater competition.

However the real world is so much different then the O'Hillary never ran a business world.

"It's looking like a lot of people are going to have little Obamacare choice next year.







Quotes in the article





UnitedHealth Group Inc


UNH






142.37


+0.35

+0.25%





Aetna Inc


AET






120.31


+0.17

+0.14%





Humana Inc


HUM






179.60


+1.55

+0.87%




One-third of the United States may have just a single insurer to pick from on Obamacare marketplaces in 2017, an analysis released Friday suggests.

Seven entire states are projected to have just one carrier in 2017: Alaska, Alabama, Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wyoming, according to research by the Avalere consultancy.


And more than half of the country, 55 percent, may end up having two or fewer insurers to choose from on those government-run exchanges, Avalere said.

"And there may be some sub-region counties where no plans are available," a report by Avalere on its analysis found. "


Less of everything , but, higher prices and deductables.

Anonymous said...



according to a scathing expose` in the WaPo, a young master trump threw rocks at other kids and pulled the pigtails of a classmate.

for shame!

btw, how's the WaPo coming on turning up dear leader's college & law school transcripts? i'm still waiting for those.

Anonymous said...

Seven entire states are projected to have just one carrier in 2017
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

seven down, 50 to go on the road to single payer.

C.H. Truth said...

There are actually states in danger of having "no insurers" in the exchange.

KD, misplaced "14,900" emails and docs, LOL@ HB said...

FBI and Hillary, oppsie,,, I am sure there is an reason Gen Collin Powell hid these emails all never before "uncovered 14,900 emails and documents" from the FBI, I mean after all Hillary said it was Powell's Fault she fucked up.


HB, Jane and Opium all told us, repeatedly, that the Email sever(s) story had no legs. They are right, this story has "Knankles".

Anonymous said...


well, there's always just a straight up massive medicaid expansion, which was always the ultimate goal anyway.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

If you get all your news from Powerline, Breitbart, Hot Air, and the links from The Drudge Report links and similar sites, manipulations what few operating brain cells, you will live in a closet. No reality allowed.

C.H. Truth said...

If you get all your news from Powerline, Breitbart, Hot Air, and the links from The Drudge Report

Of course, Roger...

You think this doesn't work both ways?

That being said, if you want "all" of the angles, "all" of the opinions, and "all" of the facts being offered... you have to be able to get yourself to read both sides.

As much as I believe the Washington Post has become an arm of the Clinton campaign... I still pay the $9.99/month to read their opinion articles masked as news stories. At least I can be informed on what they are saying. I have the Politico mobile app for my tablet and phone.

I am pretty sure you don't touch Briebart with a ten foot pole, likely believing every piece of garbage the left prints about the publication and Steve Bannon as gospel truth. How many of these other "right wing" publications do you go for useful information?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5970.html

Ohio is critical. The graph shows that Clinton is gradually widened the lead. This is the four way summary. The newest poll released today that she has a 4% lead. The Libertarian is getting 10%. Most of them generally vote for Trump. So it makes it less likely that he can take the must win, Ohio. No Republican candidate has won without Ohio. 76 days CH. You need to prepare for devastation.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

How many?

Every damn one.

C.H. Truth said...

A four point lead in a state poll is probably within the margin of error.

But this is a great example. Four polls in the entire month of August. One of them started in July (when Clinton was up by nearly double digits nationally). The only pollster who has a good history is Quinnipiac, with Marist being fairly reliable. But Survey Monkey is not very reputable and Monmouth has been reliably an outlier for Clinton this election season (look at the side bar for Monmouth).

Not enough information to really tell me much.

Meanwhile, there have been 19 different pollsters who have released polls (some of them multiple polls) on a national scale over that same time period.

Btw... the UPI/Voter tracking poll has now closed to within one point. While Trump leads for a second day in the LA Times tracking poll.

Anonymous said...



still hung up on drudge, eh?

even though he links directly to tpm, kos, salon, rolling stone. mother jones, the nation, slate, WaPo, NY Times, and vox et. al.?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The "unreliable" polls are those you don't like.

Today, the flip flop of the day I have been thinking that rrb will explode. He's going to change his immigration policy. He had planned a policy speech on Thursday. But it'd been changed.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Oh my!

Trump Ally Roger Stone Says GOP Nominee Should Release Tax Returns ‘Immediately’

Our esteemed host thinks it's unnecessary.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger...

I think Trump should release his tax returns the day Clinton fully discloses and releases all donations and expenditures of the Clinton Foundation. I would be more interested in the latter, just as you would be more interested in the former.

Also... as has been pointed out recently to me, John McCain actually released his full medical reports. Clinton only released a doctor's summary.

I think both Candidates should release full medical reports and be examined by a neutral Doctor. I would like to know if one or the other isn't being completely honest about their medical conditions.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - the fact is that there have been nine national polls released in the past week. There have been four released all month in Ohio for the four way race.

The former can provide us with a pretty good indication of where we are at. The latter provides us with some idea.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

You do understand that the margin of error can mean it's 8%?

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - in Ohio you have to keep in mind that Portman is up over six points and has been rising.

For the Republican Senator to be up 6.5 and the Republican Presidential candidate down 4 - that a ton of vote splitting in one direction (which doesn't jive with any of the national polling)

Now it's possible that its the case. After all, Clinton has been peppering Trump with ads for six weeks in the battleground states and Trump just started to fire his off. But picking off Portman supporters likely provides a ton of "low hanging fruit" for Trump to pick up four of five percent.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - I have a challenge for you...

Go to 538 polls plus forecast

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

Now go to his state listings.

Figuring Clinton is somewhere between four to six points up depending on who you look to and then lets assume he closes the gap and wins the popular vote by 1%.

Being conservative... take every state on that list and move it four points towards Trump.

Tell me how the ECV would turn out?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Easy.
If she wins those states by one vote, she will be sworn in on January 20, 2017. In a EVC landslide.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

It jives because this year is the most unusual in our lifetimes.

C.H. Truth said...

If she wins those states by one vote, she will be sworn in

Obviously you didn't understand the question, Roger.

How many of those states are within the four point margin. If those states turned to Trump.

What would the ECV look like?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

IF they turned, a BIG if, he might win. I haven't run the numbers. But it ain't gonna happen CH. My next post destroys half of your arguments in defense of Trump. You might even go to the legacy and see the reality of the guy you want to win.

C.H. Truth said...

I haven't run the numbers.

It's what I asked if you could do, Roger. Run the numbers. Because unless you actually run the numbers, how do you know where this election is at?

It's almost as if you don't really want to know. You'd rather just believe it's out of reach and be done with it.

The truth is that according to Silver's calculations, if Trump picks up around four points, he would be favored to win the election. If he picks up around five points, he becomes a fairly big favorite.

Bottom line, it does require that Trump move into the lead in the polling... and you may believe that this is not possible. But what it does tell us is that there isn't really any sort of ECV firewall for Clinton. She will need to win the popular vote to win the election.

I know you don't believe me when I tell you this. But the exact same information can be garnered from 538 - and I know you trust Silver.

So unless you are smarter than the two of us put together... you are wrong about your arguments that national polls are irrelevant.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Also, if he wins overwhelmingly in his solid states, and Clinton inches by in the "firewall" states by a small percentage, of course we could see a popular vote and ECV repeat of 2000 by similar numbers.

Even worse, for you, is if he make inroads in the big population states, CA, NY, Illinois, but still loses the electoral votes in those states, guess what?

2000 but no crooked BS like Florida. And yeah, you disagree with me on that. Life's a bitch some times

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Nevada 6
Iowa 6
North Carolina 15
Ohio 18
Clinton 314
Trump Gain 45
Trump 269
Needed to win. 270

Next

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Nope..he still doesn't win.

Besides, he's not going to get North Carolina or Nevada, Ohio probably not, Iowa maybe, but no whee near 270.

Good night.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

One last comment. Be aware of Georgia. 1.5 million were registered to vote in a get out the vote effort to counter the racist vote registration law. 90% are minorities.

Anonymous said...

Because unless you actually run the numbers, how do you know where this election is at?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

first of all, i don't think he knows how, and second, i think he's quite content consuming the vox pablum day after day. lil' ezzie tells him what he wants to hear each day and that's good enough for him.

Anonymous said...


forgive the linkage, but it appears that monmouth has gone the way of reuters in manipulating polls until they achieve their desired outcome:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-monmouth-refigures-poll-trump-comes-lead-hillary-clinton/

a completely corrupt and biased media combined with increasingly corrupt polling...

two thoughts collide -

one, this is historic. never before in my lifetime have i seen an electoral process so rigged in favor of one candidate...

and two, this is indicative of just how afraid and unhinged the left has become. they are SO afraid of trump that they just didn't let their bias mask slip, they've ripped it completely off and are not even trying to feign objectivity. to be this panicked as to openly align themselves with hillary against trump is astounding.

and to those decrying 261 days and counting without a hillary presser?

well, DUH.

she won't give another until the election. she doesn't have to. the praetorian guard of the msm has formed a protective barrier around her, and she won't be required to answer a single question outside of the debates. and with hacks like candy crowley, lil georgie, and gwen ifill asking the questions...

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - if he gets to 269 that would be a tie - it would go to the House of Representatives where the GOP has a fairly sizable majority.

He only needs 269 to win.

The latest poll in North Carolina released yesterday showed the race at 1%. Silver shows it as 0.1 for Hillary right now. Or for all practical purposes a toss up.

But I am sure you know better.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls

Really??? Look again. North Carolina isn't 1%

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - I stated that Silver shows it at 0.1%

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/north-carolina/#plus


You need some work on your reading comprehension skills

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Your 1% poll.

Founded in 2005, the Civitas Institute is a Raleigh, NC-based, 501(c)(3) nonprofit policy organization committed to creating a North Carolina whose citizens enjoy liberty and prosperity derived from limited government, personal responsibility and civic engagement. Civitas conducts the only regular live-caller polling of North Carolina voters.

Credible my ass.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

What do you say about this, Ch? -- that is, if you are not too cowardly to print it:

Clinton Still Way Ahead Nationally

August 23--The latest new NBC News/SurveyMonkey tracking poll shows Hillary Clinton continues to hold a large national lead over Donald Trump, 50% to 42%.

Clinton’s 8-point advantage is virtually unchanged from her 9-point lead last week, and she has seen similar margins since the end of July.
--politicalwire.com

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - Go to this link.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/north-carolina/#plus


This has nothing to do with the one poll you do not like.

C.H. Truth said...

The latest new NBC News/SurveyMonkey tracking poll

James - I Track the four way race for Survey Monkey. It's on the sidebar spreadsheet as of this morning. This poll comes out weekly.

It was a six point spread. It's now a five point spread in the four way race. Another poll moving in Trump's direction.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

North Carolina alone won't do it. He needs Nevada, Ohio and Florida, PLUS North Carolina. Good luck.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-national-polls-show-the-race-tightening-but-state-polls-dont/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

You won't like it.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Why do you track the four way race?

C.H. Truth said...

Why do you track the four way race?

Well James, because Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will actually be on the ballot in almost every state... so voters will be given the option of voting for them.

Doesn't it make more sense to ask them the same question they will be asked on election day... rather than pretend that there will only be two people on the ballot?

C.H. Truth said...

North Carolina alone won't do it. He needs Nevada, Ohio and Florida, PLUS North Carolina. Good luck.

Oh my dear God... you really don't get the point, do you?

I'd have better luck teaching my dog calculus.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

RCP polling shows Georgia, yes reliably red Georgia is in the Clinton column. Narrowly, you bet.

But to see that, well, devastation is on the menu. Medium rare.

The swing state list is holding steady. By the way, most of the Libertarian voters come from the red side of the voters.

Claim that only you "get it", show a certain arrogance that is called into question by the overall look at the direction of the country. It's moving forward, the era of Saint Ronald of the Reagan is ending, and Donald J Trump is putting the last nails in the coffin.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Ann Coulter has stated "there will be no hope for any Republican ever winning another election."

You and Sean Trende have dismissed this when I said it. I've been working on a piece that has a lot of documentation and historical events that back up my claim.

CH, seriously, if your party doesn't find a way to take Trump off the ticket, he will so weaken the party to the younger generation and all the various ethnic groups, that will out number the majority white, European heritage population. Trump is causing irreparable damage to the Grand Old Party, that even liberals like my occasionally vote for Republicans. I am certain that I would have voted for John Kasich. The base of the Grand Old Party can win a primary, but they are increasingly becoming less able to win at the national level.

You will lose the Senate. It may only be a two or three vote majority, but that's all they need.I don't think the house will turn this time, but the next census is going to make it harder for Republicans to Gerrymand congressional districts, as they start to lose state governments.

We may be seeing the Clinton era.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

Trump is not coming off the ticket, and even at this point in time he is polling better against Clinton than McCain did against Obama... and McCain was running a conventional campaign that was not holding 98% of his money till after Labor day.

I find your Hyperbole is astounding, Roger. If you were truly as comfortable as you demand, there wouldn't be so much fist pounding and anger coming you... and you wouldn't react with the intense rage whenever someone shows you a poll or a fact that you don't like. It's amazing how "touchy" you are about all of this.

To most of us, we are just observing this. You seem to think if you can simply control the narrative of what you hear and read... that it will actually change reality.

Hint... Observation just prepares you. Hiding your head in the sand and shouting down any one who hold a different opinion just sets you up for more "Kerry in a landslide" moments.

In all my years of projecting. How come the only races I have ever gotten wrong have been recounts or states that were within 1-2 points?

Because I simply observe. I don't project my own feelings. Same can be said for someone like Trende. It's why he is a professional at this. It's also why we will continue to 'dismiss' your Kerry in a landslide predictions (because we understand you have no clue).

Bottom Line:

The Democrats are running a candidate that the FBI director flat out stated broke laws (but would not be charged because malicious intent was not found)... and it's become clear to everyone that the Department of Justice blocked an Abuse of Office (Clinton Foundation) case that is so obvious it hardly has any defense... and they did so for purely political reasons.

If nominating a candidate with that level of corruption doesn't harm the Democrats.

Then Donald Trump (and his loose tongue) is in no danger of harming the Republicans.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

At the moment, here is where those seven swing states stand in the RealClearPolitics polling average of polls:

Colorado: Hillary Clinton +10.8
Nevada: Clinton +2.3
Iowa: Clinton +1.5
Ohio: Clinton +4.8
Florida: Clinton +4.5
New Hampshire: Clinton +9.3
Virginia: Clinton +12.8

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I don't project my own feelings.

You need some work on your reading comprehension skills

C.H. Truth said...

I don't know Roger....

Your prediction of Kerry in a Landslide was not founded on logic or observation. It was founded on wishful hoping.

Your current prediction (as of today) that unless the GOP dumps Trump from the ticket it will cause irreversible harm is equally based on your own opinions, not on any tangible data. As stated over and over and over, Trump is polling no worse that McCain, and McCain was a long time respected establishment Republican...

McCain lost by seven points, and 192 electoral college votes. The Republican Party managed to stay afloat.


Your predictions just a few weeks ago was that Trump at the top of the ticket would lose the GOP the House (you offered it multiple times to me even as you have backed off from as of now). This was also not founded on any observation or tangible evidence. Although as soon as someone from the Washington Post, NY Times, or Politico offers it as a possibility I am quite certain you will jump back on board.

C.H. Truth said...

How many times have you argued "as fact" the claim that no Presidential Candidate behind on Labor day has ever come back to win?

This is based on what exactly... considering Gallup offers proof that the claim is incorrect?

Certainly not on fact? It would appear to be based on an emotional desire to believe that everything you read from Politico or the Washington Post must be correct.

Which of course puts you in that whopping six percent of the country that trusts the media to tell you the truth.

KD, said...

Last night I watched PBS which I do most nights, (HB you know nothing about where most of us get our news, so stop , for the love of GOD projecting) I was interesting to watch them go into full melt down mode over how Trump is doing so well, tied in some polls leading in others.

PBS Judy Woodruff was hosting and she had a round table of like minded narrow minded extreme leftist woman. Here are the Takeaways.

Hillary has spent about 225 million dollars more then Trump, yet has little to show for it.

Hillary has paid staff of 720,,, Trump is stay with her toe to toe with only 68 paid staffers.

Hillary is so used to throwing OPM at her problems, Trump is used to spending wisely his own money.


I really loved the meltdown.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The odds are as of this time, that the Republican party will have lost the last three Presidential elections. And the odds are that I'm right and you know that. She's also going to get a Democratic senate.

Can Trump change things or some kind of "October Surprise" could give him a better chance. But every single reputable poll analysts say that Clinton has around an 80% chance or higher of winner. I'm basing my beliefs on the facts as they are out there today. RCP, Sabato, Silver, all you normally believe

You also don't seem to accept that Donald Trump is a unique candidate. He has no political experience, but you think his business success, which is debatable, makes him qualified. And that his outrageous comments on dozens of issues and people don't make you think he's not going to be a good President.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Boom? We shall see.

C.H. Truth said...

Actually Roger,

Silvers Polls Plus page shows Trump at 24% - so not every reputable projection person puts her at 80% or more.

As much as you don't like to actually analyze anything other than the obvious... There are more than enough states within 5 points or less (by his projections) to swing the election either way. Keep in mind, that Silver had Trump winning in the "Now Cast" and race spent some time at the 60/40 mark for his polls plus. This was just a few weeks ago.

My own projections (that apparently go unnoticed by the observant like yourself) show Clinton ahead right now in both Popular vote and Electoral College Vote. That's the "observation" right now.

But there is a difference between observing what is happening now, projection what may happen in the future (a fools errand), and doing what you are doing... which is a demand that Clinton's landslide victory (and the fall of the GOP) is all but assured and anyone who believes that things might change should be taken out in the middle of the street and shot dead.

The degree of hyperbole and insistence from you is alarming. I just don't get why you must project so much, when we really have no f-n clue how this is going to turn out.

Clinton could maintain her current lead and win by around the same margins as Obama did. She could improve on her current lead and win by bigger margins. She could lose her lead and end up in a dogfight that goes down to the wire. Or she could lose her lead, implode and Trump could win comfortably.

Believe it or not... all of these possibilities have happened in the past. Including the former, when Reagan came back from four points down on Labor day and won 489 electoral college votes.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

'There you go again"

Trump is no Reagan.

and BTW. Home prices are at a 9 year high.

The Obama recovery continues. A lot of this election depends on the popularity of Obama, because Trump is making it an issue. The longest period of non farm jobs in history, is continuing. He has quit using the U6 number, because he gets called on that every time.

The governor of Louisiana is on MSNBC right now and is saying that the timing of the Obama visit is as he requested.

A good day for Clinton.

Myballs said...

The Bradley effect part two. It is real. I know because I am one of those voters.

Its not worth the grief and hassle from the left. It's easier to say I oppose both. But Trump will get my vote.

C.H. Truth said...

Trump is no Reagan

In 1980 Reagan was no Reagan.

He was written off as an extreme right wing candidate well outside the mainstream and destined to not take advantage of a weak Democratic candidate.

But Trump doesn't have to be Reagan to win. All he has to be is a candidate who stays away from controversy long enough to let the political gravity take hold. Then it would be anyone's race to win or lose.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I have an on topic question for CH.

If Trump is serious about attracting African-American voters, why doesn't he speak in black churches, or any one of the majority African-American neighborhoods?

Of course the crowd may be difficult, but they would respect him for going into the home of the voters he needs to have a chance. Instead, he has made his pitch for the black vote in neighborhoods that have next to 0% black, Hispanic or Asian.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

You completely misunderstand Reagan v Trump. Although people on the left called him a lot of names, but he had a record as a successful governorship in the second largest state in the country. Reagan did not run a divisive and angry campaign. He offered hope. Trump is a complete opposite.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

There he goes again. Trump praised Obama's immigration program, and is changing in a 100% flip flop.

I will bet that CH will say this is smart.

KD, Hillary for SALE SIGN at State Dept said...

Hillary had SOLD the US State Department for hard cold Cash, that is all so clear to those that get our news from both the left defending her selling access and personally enriching herself and those on the right that see this as a breach of the Public Trust.

When MSN and Huffpo have it as lead stories you know this runs deep , aka "has legs".

Does it bother the leftist here that she can be so easily bought?

KD, Hillary, Sold the State Dept, FOR SALE SIGN on WH said...

HB, did you attempt to slip into this debate the fact that US Housing Prices Rising is a great thing for all Americans, I think you did, so in my continuing effort to educate you in matters you know nothing about, construction, US Housing and the effect on wealth creation, I again present you with facts.

As US housing slowly moves at a snails pace and in fits and starts and drops, lets look at some fact you don't know.

1, 56 percent of all blacks RENT, put another way, they are pissing away wealth.

2, Since Obimbo your god, took office blacks have lost ground in home ownership "46% to 42.5%" .

3, As prices rise, even more blacks will remain renters unable to take that first critical step into home ownership and legacy wealth creation.

Tell us again how those states help the black ?

Anonymous said...

Does it bother the leftist here that she can be so easily bought?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

fuck no.

as long as she can be bought in pursuit of the liberal agenda that's a feature, not a bug.

KD, How much $$ will Hillary Sell the White House for? said...

Her campaign is not responding to the Pay for Play and the emails released between then Sec State Clinton and Huma the Cash Cow and her Mosselimb connections and the free flow of cash from those woman hating groups to the Clinton Crime Family slush fund.

RICO applies here.