Monday, October 31, 2016

Polls trending in Trump's favor...

IBD/TIPP, LA Times, Lucid, People's Pundit, UPI/Voter, and ABC/Washington Post are all tracking polls that have moved in Donald Trump's favor since the news of the investigation broke. In fact, Rasmussen is the only daily tracking poll to not show movement in Trump's direction. Morning Consult also moved in Trump's favor, while Survey Monkey suggested that their survey didn't move.

That's seven out of nine National polls released since the news broke, all moving in Trump's favor. That's 78% of the polls, and that is a trend. We'll see if it continues.

Meanwhile, RCP shows state movement in favor of Trump in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, Arizona, Virginia and Georgia. While Clinton has improved in Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. Although most of these polls were from "prior" to the latest FBI announcement, and some of these RCP averages reflect polls dropping off the average. Overall, the latest State polling also seem to be moving in Trump's favor.

Overall, the race was already tightening, and this is just going to tighten it even more. I stated multiple times that the polls would consolidate closer to election day. Seems this is becoming the case, where most of the polls are very close, with the new "outlier" being Clinton up by mid single digits, rather than up double digits.

Maybe it's not Comey who is wrong here...

Let's start with this. When you hear the term "unprecedented" to describe anything regarding the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton, it's wise to keep in mind that at the core here is that a Major Party nominated a Presidential candidate who was "under" criminal FBI investigation. That, boys and girls, is where "unprecedented" should really stop and start. Anything that happens regarding this investigation should be put on the shoulders of Hillary Clinton (who got herself into this mess) and the Democratic Party (who chose to nominate her anyways).

So let's start with the latest accusations from the left that James Comey is suddenly a charter member of the vast right wing conspiracy and is acting as a rogue FBI director doing crazy "unprecedented" things in an obvious attempt to bring down Hillary Clinton. Everyone on the left points to the fact that Comey did not follow the advice of Loretta Lynch and others in the DOJ, who recommended that the latest information regarding the (once again) ongoing criminal investigation be held under wraps.

A partisan with motivation to alter election

Does anyone on the left stop to consider that the most obvious ulterior motives here do not come from Comey, but from Lynch? For all practical purposes, Director Comey has no personal political gain to stepping forward with this information. But there is a very obvious reason for the very partisan Loretta Lynch to want this information withheld.

Nearly two thirds of the country (including a fairly significant chunk of Democrats) believed that Hillary Clinton should have been indicted. The fact that she wasn't appears (from what we now know after the fact) to have been driven "more" by the Director on "up" than by the rank and file investigators who believed that they had a case. Occam's razor suggests that there was pressure to resolve the matter, and to resolve it in a particular way. I say this because between the two theories, the one that calls into question the overall competence and judgement of the FBI rank and file seem much more unlikely than that assumption that there was political pressure from the AG and DOJ.

It follows then, that similar logic applies to this situation. Is it really more plausible to suggest James Comey suddenly became a stooge for the Republicans, than to suggest that Lynch is "still" in the bag for Clinton? Moreover, doesn't it strike you as strange that the argument of "precedent" is being used for a situation that actually has no precedent? Is there really any sort of previous examples where people running for office were also under FBI investigation, and that the FBI was asked to take "politics" into consideration during said investigation? If so, doesn't that seem like a bad policy to begin with?

Really what is being argued by the left today... is exactly what the right has complained about for years. That the Clintons are above the law and should be treated differently because of their status.

Sunday, October 30, 2016

Third of Voters less likely to vote for Clinton...

According to an ABC Washington Post poll, just over one third (thirty four percent) of likely voters are "less" likely to vote for Clinton. This is actually a surprisingly large number considering the amount of people one would think are already locked in.

Washington Post poll now shows dead heat.
Remember a week ago when Clinton was up twelve?

The poll offers a breakdown that approximately thirty percent of those voters (who answered that thy were less likely) are either pure independents or Democratic leaning Democrats. That means that there is roughly ten percent of the total electorate who are either Independent or Democrat leaning independents now questioning their vote for Clinton. The other quarter of the electorate (who are claiming they are reconsidering Clinton) would be Republicans or Republican leaning Independents.

This is dangerous for Clinton here folks. If a reasonable number of the Republicans and conservative independents who were questioning Trump fall back into partisan lines, and even a small percentage of neutral or left leaning independents decide to vote for Trump, Johnson, or Stein, or stay home all together, it could be "very" damaging.

This was already a quickly tightening election. This announcement further through everything into question.  

This requires an unwilling suspension of disbelief

I've heard spin before. But for the life of me, I cannot get my arms around exactly what it is that they are trying to accomplish here. Robby Mook is suggesting that there would be no reason for Clinton to ask Huma Abedin what might have been on that laptop. Even if you believed that the story "might" be wrong, your first questions should be to Huma Abedin to confirm or deny them.

I can only hope that they expect other Democrats to play just as dumb and pretend that they too do not believe that this information came from Huma Abedin and that the only person who might know what is in these emails is Director Comey. This would be a suicidal walk down spinners lane.

Meanwhile, everyone and their brother knows that Huma Abedin "has" been asked, and that if the answer was a good one that they would release it to the public. This further lends itself to the notion that there was something serious that came up, and that it was serious enough to warrant further review and the letter in question informing people.

As has been pointed out. Comey possibly loses either way. If this situations swings the election to Trump, and then it turns out that the emails were much ado about nothing. Comey would be held responsible. If Comey not said anything, Clinton wins the election, and then it turns out that there was something there that leads to some sort of criminal indictment for Clinton or even one of her aids. Comey would also be held responsible. It looks to me like he is hedging a bigger bet against the latter than the former. I assume he knows more than what he is telling the public.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

AG, President, Clinton all pissed off!

Well there is no question that James Comey is now a man without many friends. After pissing off most of his subordinates as well as most conservatives in the country, he's now pissed off his superiors and most of the liberals in the country.

Speculation is going crazy. The "most interesting" theory in my opinion is that the emails found in Abedin's home computer was more of an "excuse" to reopen an investigation that most of the rank and file agents felt was closed prematurely. I don't know that it's true, but it does resonate with the Trump message of everything this side of my son's Bantam Hockey game being rigged.

Perhaps Wikileaks and the release of FBI emails  have not had the direct impact that some might have expected. Most of your media has buried these stories well behind the latest 40 year old unsubstantiated accusation of sexual harassment by Donald Trump.

But what all of this leaking has done is further called Comey's decision to not prosecute Clinton into question. As it turned out, his well publicized thrown together press conference exonerating Hillary Clinton came shortly "after" he vetoed requests from investigators to subpoena information from Clinton (post interview) and "while" these investigators were still gathering additional information and still investigating Clinton (including investigating possible false statements). It was obvious that Comey stabbed those investigators in the back by closing an investigation they were still persuing, and likely did so without much apology.

All that being said, the most "logical explanation" here is that this is still a bigger legal problem for Abedin than for Clinton. That being said, this reopening of the investigation was made at the request of the rank and file FBI investigators. It's unlikely that Comey would have acted (without approval from his superior) unless there was good reason to. That could spell legal trouble for more than just Abedin.

But either way, it's a damaging political issue for Clinton to be dealing with ten days from the election. If nothing else, this has awoken many Republicans and breathed some much needed life into the Trump campaign. Mighty momentum had been sneaking towards Trump, but with this news, the momentum just "lurched" in his favor.

Why does this matter? Because we are not talking about Donald Trump.

Friday, October 28, 2016

FBI reopens investigation regarding Clinton Email...

Bad timing for Clinton?
Or will nobody care?

The buzz is that Anthony Weiner may have turned over a device (willingly or otherwise) used by Huma Abedin to the FBI, which apparently contained some information relevant to the case. Now, quite obviously if this was (as some are suggesting) much ado about nothing, there would have been no reason for the FBI to take a second look at everything, much less send a letter to Congress letting them know.

Clinton supporters react to news
Since we already know that classified material was sent from and stored on the server. My personal thought process is that this device may have held private conversations between Clinton and Abedin that would offer some proof as to her "intent" to skirt the laws. Everyone knows she did it on purpose and knew it was illegal (except of course James Comey). Perhaps this new information provides that particular smoking gun.

I certainly understand the anger from partisans on the left who are considering this a possible "dirty October surprise" on the Part of the FBI Director. Providing a generic message such as this leaves open the possibility of much speculation, much discussion, much accusation, and pretty much nothing positive for Clinton. Comey has suggested that there is no time-table, meaning there will almost certainly not be another "exoneration" speech prior to the election. This would leave open the possibility that we could elect someone who "still" could be indicted. Something that could certainly sway a few voters otherwise on the fence.  

Rebuttal update: To those who suggest that these are not relevant because they were not found from Clinton's email server sort of both miss and prove the point at the same time. If there are hundreds (as being reported) emails on this "device" that were otherwise not deleted... it could provide insight to some of the 30,000 emails that "were" deleted. This is another "possible" reason that this information is important. If they cannot cross reference these emails with what they already found from the Clinton server, it would suggest more cover up.

Btw... no way do "reporters" have information on this at this point. Anything you hear in defense of Clinton is more cover-up (you can gather this from the semantic word play being used). The letter states that the FBI will need time to go through all of this. Certainly Pete Williams does not have the "scoop" at this point. His is pure speculation.

It's also possible that this is a bigger "legal" problem for Abedin than it would be for Clinton. Remember, the investigation into Clinton's email server was not "just" about Clinton and her actions. The actions of her leading advisers and aides is also under scrutiny. All of it, however, provides a political problem for Clinton.

Polling suggests National Anthem Protest causing NFL Ratings decline...

BOSTON (CBS) — There are many reasons why the NFL’s ratings are down in 2016. You may be dismissive of the very idea that the backlash to the national anthem protests, sparked by the 49ers’ Colin Kaepernick, has played a role in the NFL’s TV ratings, which have dropped by about 12 percent year-over-year. To continue to dismiss that is to blatantly ignore legitimate data on the subject.

A fresh poll from Seton Hall surveyed 841 adults across the U.S. Each respondent was asked to identify seven separate factors as a reason for the NFL ratings drop, allowing them to answer “yes” or “no” for each of them. The leading factor, according to the poll, was the national anthem protests, which scored “yes” at a rate of 56 percent.
Other answers also scored “yes” at a high rate, including 50 percent of “yeses” for coverage of the presidential election, 47 percent for the league’s handling of domestic violence cases, 44 percent for the over-saturation of the market, 39 percent for increased interest in postseason baseball, and 33 percent for controversy over head injuries and player safety.
Interestingly enough, the lowest score, tied with player safety at 33 percent, was “a decline in quality of play on the field.” Many would cite this as the overriding factor to all of this, and it certainly is factoring in. It’s easier to turn the games off for other reasons if the games aren’t fun to watch in the first place.

Yeah, suggesting that Colin Kaepernick and gang are the reason why people are tuning out from the NFL is considered "politically incorrect" in most circles. But the bottom line here folks is that many Americans are simply fed up with these sort of antics and incredibly tired of the identity politics pushed by the left. The fact that it has now bled over into professional sports is sad in the eyes of many.

It may seem somewhat dismissive and simplistic to  suggest that there is any sort of solution to simply "making America great again".  But it's really nothing more than a counter to the alternative reality of the left. A reality where we must all agree that the very fiber of our society is rooted in micro-aggression, triggers, systemic racism, and subconscious bigotry. Where we must accept that no matter what we do, someone somewhere is likely to take offense, and it's pretty much all our fault.

The never ending list of aggrieved victims stepping forward to demand their just rewards for their very existence is wearing. But to realize that there simply isn't anywhere to go anymore where we can all just come together as Americans is what is truly exhausting.    

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Embarrassing ABC Tracking Poll Down To Six Four

And other polling updates:

As of this morning, Clinton's twelve point lead in the Washington Post Tracking poll has been cut in half.  What once was a healthy twelve point lead is now six points (two releases later).  Twelve points was never a legitimate number, but I suspect that there may be a correlation between the timing of the original poll (in time to be reported by your Sunday morning talk shows) and the larger opening number.

Quite obviously many people heard about the original twelve point number. I doubt many will be keeping up with the poll to know that it closed in half. Whether that was actually "on purpose" or not is a matter of speculation. But it's clear to see that they have seen much different polling since the original four day sample (this most recent poll has three day of new polling and one day from the original).

Meanwhile the Rasmussen tracking poll remains at Clinton plus one, the TIPP poll shows Clinton plus one and two tenths, while the LA Times has Trump with a seven tenth of a percent lead.

Lastly, FOX news came out with a new poll last night showing the race at three points. This (in my humble opinion) is much more realistic than the original ABC poll or the latest AP/GfK poll.

I have a gut feeling that we are actually going to see some late polling convergence from many pollsters. If our state polls are any indication, then a number similar to the 2012 election (3-5) range seems reasonable. But of course, that would indicate a close election and would obviously build a narrative that Trump is coming back from the dead and stands a chance. This would be a very dangerous narrative for those who would prefer to push the narrative that the election is over, Clinton is inevitable, and that it's only a matter of margin.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Political battlefield...

Newt Gingrich vs Megyn Kelly - I wasn't necessarily a fan of either participant. But at the end of the day, it's the journalists job to make sure that the person you are interviewing actually has a chance to discuss what it is that they are there to discuss. Arguing, berating, and interrupting makes the segment go bad (which is Kelly's ultimate responsibility). She obviously has a deep dislike of Donald Trump and it shows in almost everything she does these days.

The point Gingrich was trying to make was that while there is certainly polling showing Trump behind in key states, he is arguing that the numbers on the ground (early voting, and absentee ballot requests) show Trump doing better than Romney did, while Clinton is lagging behind where Obama was. You cannot counter this particular argument by continuing to cite polls (especially when your guest stipulated to Trump's polling deficit multiple times). It completely misses the point of the argument that the polls are not reflecting what is happening in early voting. Her statement at the end for Gingrich to work on his "anger issues" was out of line.

TIPP and the tracking pollsters vs MSM and other pollsters - Let's start with the fact that TIPP has been considered the most accurate pollster over the past three elections. The person in charge of TIPP polling stands by their results showing a virtual tie, and states that they are not doing anything differently than they have over the past three elections.

But, the other pollsters make the argument that TIPP and other pollsters showing a close race are missing the point by simply doing the same thing that they have done in the past. They argue that these pollsters are not considering the changing of Demographics that is being built into many of these other polls showing a larger Clinton lead.

At the end of the day, this is a concession (to some degree) that the large Clinton leads are being propped up by a demographic make up that would be unprecedented. In 2014, the Republicans made up thirty seven percent of the vote and held a one point advantage. The most recent polls (showing Clinton with large leads) have the Republicans down double digits or more. In the recent AP/GfK poll, they show Republicans at twenty five percent, and a significant double digit Democratic advantage. That seems much more unlikely to me, than TIPP using a more traditional demographic makeup in 2016.  The Democrats peaked in 2008, and have not reached that degree since. I find the argument that 2016 will be significantly better than 2008 to be wanting.

Lastly, the state polls simply do not correspond well to pollsters showing large Hillary Clinton leads. At this point, she is behind in two states won by Obama, and most of the battleground states are not polling all that different from the final 2012 results. If she was truly ahead nationally by upper single or double digit lead, that would correspond to a much bigger advantage in the collective state polls. The state polls seem to reflect a race much more similar to the 2012 race, than what these national pollsters are showing.

If Our MSM Political Reporters Wrote Sports Stories..

Coach Belichick undermines the legitimacy of the NFL by making unsubstatiated claims of NFL bias and baseless insinuations of unfair treatment of Tom Brady in the inflategate investigation. 
No doubt, this statement appears "hostile" to Coach Belichick and involves a bunch of presumptions that may or may not be based on evidence. The basis of this statement comes directly from the article linked below... and how a similar statement about Donald Trump was a passed off as "reporting" by a news outlet.

But let's break it down.

Does questioning an organizations motives or bias "undermine their legitimacy"? I would argue they would not, unless those questions actually have merit. In fact, in some ways, if there an organization showed obvious bias, and there was a complete lack of anyone calling that organization out on it... that would do just as much to "undermine the legitimacy" as anything. In other words, accusations of bias will only go as far as those allegations can be seen by people or proven as such.

What should be considered "unsubtantiated"? Objectively only that which can be supported by tangible evidence is technically substantiated. But there is certainly "some evidence" to back Trump's claims that the election process is "rigged' based on his description of that particular word. The forced resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz was based on evidence of "rigging the primary" for Clinton. The leaked emails showing that the Clinton campaign recieved the debate questions in advance would also be considered evidence of "rigging". The timing of the release of the Billy Bush audio could also qualify as evidence of bias, which would be "rigging" in terms of Donald Trump's explanation of the term.

However, the manner in which this reporter uses the term unsubstantiated, suggests he believes  much higher level of evidence must exist to make a claim like this. Another way to define unsubtantiated, is to determine that if your evidence falls short of "absolute proof" it would be considered unsubstantiated. Fair enough. However, that would make pretty much any and all opinions "unsubstantiated". Whether that opinion be that the Patriots are a favorite to make it back to the Superbowl, or the opinion that Donald Trump is unfit for the Presidency,  those opinions would be considered "unsubstantiated". But you won't read any reporter suggest that a prognosticator picking the Patriots to get to the Super Bowl or the Presidents opinions about Donald Trump are "unsubstantiated". You will just read what the prognosticator or President stated, which is how a reporter should report. Same thing "should" hold true for Donald Trump. What he states is what he states. Ironically, in this scenario, a reporter suggesting that his opinion is "unsubstantiated" is also technically just offering an "unsubstantiated" opinion in and of itself. It's actually a blatant act of hypocrisy.

Lastly, using the term "baseless insinuation" is just a more biased manner of injecting personal opinion than using the term "unsubstantiated claim". In the case of the Trump story, the baseless insinuation was that Hillary Clinton was taking some sort of performance enhancement drug to provide her with extra energy during the debates. Whether said statement is "baseless" depends on your point of view. Certainly she did not disprove the allegations by agreeing to take a drug test prior. So it cannot be disproven. Was she (as he stated) much more energenic and sharp at the beginning of the debate, and did she tail off towards the end? That would be the opinion of most people who watched the debate. That would also be the "basis" for suggesting she had taken some sort of performance enhancement that wore down as the debate moved on. It may or may not be a "good" basis or even enough of a basis for most people to make the claim. That being written, I have personally talked to a great many people who wondered the exact same thing (even before Trump made that insinuation). So there must be "some" basis for something observed by a great deal of people.

Bottom line: There are no more "reporters" out there folks. There are only journalists peddling their opinions as fact. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I do mean to undermine the legitimacy of the main stream media, and admit that my opinions are only substantiated by whatever evidence I personally see. You may see my claims as baseless, but that is just your unsubstantiated opinion leading you to your baseless insinuation as such.

Hat Tip: Column-dishonest media your bias is showing

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

A no mandate election...

It really doesn't matter who wins this election or by how much. There will be no mandate because the specific reason for most people to vote in this election will no longer exists once November 8th passes. More than any election in my lifetime (and probably in history) this is an election where a significant portion of Americans will vote to keep one or the other candidates from winning.

As the liberal media is becoming more convinced that Hillary Clinton will win the election, you are seeing more and more people step up and talk about the unfairness of her unpopularity. The "irony" of the first woman President coming into office with a cloud over her. They are now looking to "blame" someone (anyone) else for these problems.

The truth is that Hillary Clinton could win by 20 points and it would still not offer her a mandate. Her entire campaign has been focused on stopping Donald Trump from becoming President. She could effectively resign a day after being sworn in and could claim to have accomplished most of what she set out to do.

She has literally written off tens of millions of Americans as deplorable, un-American, and irredeemable. She continuously accuses Trump, Republicans, and their supporters of being racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, etc... These comments, ladies and gentlemen, do not solicit cooperation from those who disagree with you.  They solicit a deep resentment and dislike of the person making the statement.

She has been provided cover by the media, she got away with criminal activity that everyday Americans would be in jail over, and she simply refuses to tell the truth about a wide range of issues. Her hypocrisy over the sexual allegations of Donald Trump play to the heart of the sort of person she is. Basically, when it comes to Hillary Clinton, all is fair in love, war, and politics. Shame or threaten sexual assault victims to provide cover for your Husband. Blame a  youtube video for the deaths of four Americans who were killed on your watch. Blame the vast right wing conspiracy for everything else in between. Anything that has to be done.

The concept of a "rigged" election is not just a Donald Trump issue, but it was a Bernie Sanders issue as well. Leaked emails from the DNC "proved" that the Party worked behind the scenes to give Clinton every advantage they could in the primary season. We have been shown evidence of collusion within the media to help her win, going as fair as CNN sending Clinton debate questions in advance. Currently 41% of the American electorate believe that this election has the potential to be "stolen" by fraud and other means.

Believe me when I say that the same media who has colluded with the Clinton campaign has no credibility to tell Americans they are wrong to feel the way they feel.

Lastly, once either of these candidates become President, any argument regarding the "other candidate" becomes moot. The only relevant argument at that point becomes your ability to point to the "good qualities" of your candidate. Between the two of them, there isn't enough good qualities to fill a thimble.

That being said, one could argue that of the two of them, Trump offers a better chance of claiming a mandate. At least he is running on something (the ultimate outsider draining the swap of establishment corruption). Even the Hillary campaign has openly admitted that they have no real idea what her message is. Not that Trump would be popular (he wouldn't be) or necessarily effective (he wouldn't be popular with many in Congress). But at least he could point to the fact he won with a message.

If Clinton wins, however... it will be with the Message that Donald Trump is unfit. It will be fueled by elitism, favoritism, and dishonest campaign tactics. It will come at a cost of alienating most every Donald Trump voter in the deepest of fashioned and poisoning the system. The media can look as hard as they want. They can look under the bed, behind the couch, or in the closet. The only thing they will find to blame is Hillary Clinton and those who enabled her. The first woman President would have no mandate to lead.

Monday, October 24, 2016

Democratic Party in collusion with Media polling?

Wikileaks released some emails where the Democratic Party was advising pollsters how to skew samples for purposes of inflating polling results for Democrats:

I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.
Research, microtargeting & polling projects - Over-sample Hispanics - Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets) - Over-sample the Native American population
- Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state. - On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.
- General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions - Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed - Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed

Now, certainly this all sounds like a giant National inquirer style, blown out of proportion story that will be quickly dismissed as much by (ironically) the very media outlets who may be considered to be following said advice. It's also not a call out to "media pollsters" but specifically to one pollster. However, the fact that there are big differences in sampling number is apparent to anyone who really pays attention. It's one of the "first" things that you should look for when you see that polling "outlier".

But it doesn't always play out as you might imagine: Here are a handful of the current polling demographic sampling:

  • New ABC/Washington Post tracking poll - Democrats +9 
  • TIPP - Democrats +8 
  • NBC/Survey Monkey - Democrats +6 
  • LA Times - Democrats +6
  • YouGov - Democrats +5

As you can see... the ABC/WP poll is expecting the "best" demographic result for the Democrats, whereas the YouGov poll is expecting the "best" demographic result for the Republicans. But as a whole, the differences don't really seem to be able to account for the differences between the pollsters. 

How is it (for instance) that the ABC/Washington Post tracking poll show an twelve point lead, white TIPP has it virtually tied, and the Party affiliation breakdown is fairly even between the two polls? In this case, the answer is actually within the Demographics, especially with Independents. In the ABC/WP poll they show Independents going in favor of Clinton by eight points, whereas TIPP shows Independents going in favor or Trump by nine points. To be fair, out of the fifteen polls I track for Demographics only four of them show Clinton winning Independents, and only the ABC/WP poll has her winning by anything more than two points. Overall, the "average" of Independents shows Trump approximately plus five. So as it goes, the ABC/WP polls seems to be an outlier in those regards (by a pretty large margin). This could suggest that a different demographic "within" the Independent samples was used.  But does this prove collusion? I doubt it.

Bottom line:  I have always argued that early Media polls cannot be trusted. It seems as though the polls often times are done in support of a pre-written story, rather than the other way around. But as the election draws near, these media polls fall back into line with the independent polling. Nobody wants to be "wrong" when it comes to polling. In fact, generally speaking by the time we hit October, the polls are converging.  

In 2012, for instance, the largest poll for Obama the last five weeks or so was a plus five, while the largest poll for Romney during that time was plus 4.  Only three October/November polls were more than three points off the final RCP average.  All the rest fell between a plus four for Obama and a plus two for Romney. That's a remarkable consistency. 

But as has been pointed out over and over... this is not the case in 2016. We are only two weeks out from the election and we are still seeing a polling range of fourteen points (or more). In fact, there seems to be two or possibly three different "sets" of data points. One with a Clinton lead approaching double digits, one with four-six Clinton lead, and one where the race toggles back and forth between the two (a virtual tie). 

This is unprecedented. No matter how you want to chalk it up. Collusion between the Democrats and media polling? Doubtful. A ton of disagreement about how the 2016 electorate is going to look? Absolutely. At the end of the day, unless there is a dramatic swing in polling the last two weeks here, a large number of pollsters will be very wrong (one way or the other). 

Sunday, October 23, 2016

New Tracking Poll

So ABC/Washington post is going to provide us all with a new tracking poll down the stretch. It starts off with a "bang" by showing Clinton up by 12 points in a four way race (50-38-5-2). The poll shows that Clinton is winning with women, winning with men, winning with minorities, almost winning with whites, and pretty much shows Trump tracking below where Romney ran in every tangible demographic listed.

Moreover the poll suggests that Republicans will only make up 27% of the electorate... which would be a significant drop from the "lowest" percent that the GOP has had in a Presidential race in recent history (in 2008, the GOP made up 32% of the vote). It would also represent an unprecedented drop from the 37% of the vote the GOP enjoyed two years ago.

I am skeptical of this poll for two main reasons:

  • It is an unreasonable change from their previous poll released just a week ago which showed the race within four points. Nothing has happened over the past week that would justify an eight point "vault" (as the story states) in Clinton's favor. While most of the polling from the third debate showed Clinton with a marginal victory... the same polls suggested that undecideds thought Trump won, and that it made them more likely to vote for Trump (not Clinton). Other national polling (Ipsos, TIPP, Morning Consult, CVoter, Rasmussen) has shown the race tightening or holding steady over the past week. 
  • The demographic breakdown is questionable, and "appears" to be a static number they weighted. I could be wrong and that demographic breakdown may be dynamic, but otherwise it is well out of line with other weighted tracking polls who show the GOP having more historically traditional numbers. While there may actually be some Republicans who will chose to vote third Party or even vote for Clinton, I am not sure that you will see a 27% decrease in the actual number of Republicans voting from 2014. Certainly not when you consider that in 2008 and 2012, the Democrats were coming out in record numbers for a much more popular Barack Obama. There is every indication that both minority and younger voters are not enthused and will not come out to the same degree. Hard to objectively see "both" a decrease in traditional Democratic voters "and" a significantly lower "percent" of the electorate being Republican.
Overall, it's another poll to mull over and watch over the last two weeks. It will interesting to see if it continues to show Clinton with double digit leads. 

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Scorched Earth...

The other day I heard someone make a simple statement: "I don't want Donald Trump to win, and I don't care what has to be done to prevent it."  Upon drilling into this statement, it was admitted that if this person had the ability to actually "rig" the election in some way, they would most certainly do so. Consequences damned.

This sounds remarkably similar in context to the editor over at the NY Times who suggested he would risk going to jail to release Donald Trump's tax returns. 

The bottom line is that there is so much unreasonable and irrational hate in today's society that many people don't really care "what the cost" will be... they just want Donald Trump to lose. This begs the question: As it pertains to the 2016 election cycle, what "has" America (as a society) already sacrificed in a blatant attempt to prevent the ultimate "outsider" to be allowed into the oval office. 

The first sacrifice is the reputation of the Department of Justice and the FBI. While many already believed that the DOJ has always been a political organization, most everyone believed that the FBI was objective. In fact,]most everyone believed that James Comey was a stand up guy. Almost nobody still believes that the FBI is objective and that James Comey is still an honest guy. Moving forward, the American public will see the FBI as political. A large portion of Americans will always believe that Clinton got away with criminal behavior. All of this will be seen as a means for the Democratic Administration to further their champion as the heir apparent to the Presidency. To make sure Hillary was elected President, the reputation and integrity of an entire agency was sacrificed. 

The second is the further erosion of trust in the media. To hear the NY Times editor admit he would commit a crime and risk jail in order to publish private tax returns is probably not too surprising. But to hear that people within CNN actually colluded with the Clinton campaign by sending them the debate questions ahead of time actually "is" surprising. CNN just assured themselves that they will never host and none of their personalities will ever moderate another debate that includes Republicans. I cannot imagine that the GOP would ever agree to it. 

Moreover, the open attacks of hatred from so many journalists is unprecedented. While in the past, the media has always skewed to the left, this Presidential cycle has been at a different level. Let's not forget that Donald Trump won the primary with a record number of votes. Has has set records for the number of small donors for a GOP candidate, and still has the support of tens of millions of Americans. To listen to the media, pretty much all of these supporters are racist, white trash, uneducated idiots. They simply treat Trump as if he is the leader of the new Nazi Party, rather than a political outsider who has (in essence) captured much of the working class voter that "used" to represent the Democratic Party.   

Third, I believe that the office of the Presidency has been forever tainted. Ultimately, it was the responsibility of the White House to make sure that any criminal investigation of a potential Presidential candidate would be viewed as fair and impartial. The only legitimate means to this would be to appoint a special prosecutor, as every other President/Attorney General has done in similar situations that involved high level political figures. But instead, they decided to keep the investigation in house, cut sweat heart deals with those being investigated, and even allowed the FBI to destroy evidence in the course of it all. While this overlaps with the erosion of trust of the DOJ, and the newfound distrust of the FBI... ultimately this goes back to the President who simply needed to make the right call. 

Lastly, the legitimacy of the next President will be next to non-existent. Whether the President is Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, half the country will be fairly disgusted with the results and there will be almost no chance of cooperation between Parties at this point. Too many people understand that Hillary Clinton got away with criminal behavior, too many people will believe that the election was not fair, and too many people will question the results.  On the flip side too many people have been led to believe that Donald Trump is a Hitler loving, skin head wanna be, who hates women, and would just as soon kick a puppy than pet it. Either way, the next President is screwed and you can put that blame fully on the shoulders of irrational Donald Trump haters.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Here is some Irony...

Three of the four daily tracking polls show Trump winning.

  • TIPP - Trump +1
  • People's Pundit - Trump +2
  • Rasmussen - Trump +3

The fourth is the LA Times poll... showing the race all tied up at 44%.

(Note: as of today, LA Times poll shows Trump winning as well)

For most of this election cycle the liberal pundits have been decrying the LA Times poll as a complete biased piece of garbage poll to be discarded like yesterday's trash. Now it actually shows the best result for Clinton out of the four daily tracking polls that I am able to track daily. I suppose that means that TIPP (who was the most accurate pollster in 2012), People's Pundit (who got all of the Senate races correct in 2014), and Rasmussen must be even more evil and horrible in comparison.

BTW, a quick peak at 538 shows that Silver adjusts the IBD/TIPP poll in Hillary's favor. In spite of it being released today,  he has 12 polls ahead of it for purposes of weighted averaging. He does the same thing with Rasmussen, adjusting it towards Clinton and then placing it one spot below TIPP as far as his weighted average. He adjusts the LA Times poll by five points towards Clinton, and ignores the Peoples Pundit poll all together. Interestingly he does include a poll by the Picayune/Lucid Times newspaper (out of New Orleans?) that shows Hillary up by twelve (which he hasn't even rated because it's never been a poll before 2016*) and places it several places ahead of TIPP in his weighted average (in spite of giving TIPP an A- rating).

Once again... we find ourselves in familiar territory. Several pollsters showing Hillary way out in the lead, while you have a several others showing the race very close or even in Trump's favor. The last few times this happened, you saw the large Hillary leads sort of fall back into line with those polls that have more consistently shown a close race.

No promises this will happen again over the next three weeks here... I have a feeling that you will continue to see the multiple polling realities. I fully expect to continue to see polls showing a wide Clinton lead, polls showing a small Clinton lead, and polls showing a small Trump lead. At the end of the day, there is going to be many pollsters with egg on their face.

* Personally I would never include an unknown poll that admits to using the demographics of all adults as their basis for gathering a sample. Even if they only poll registered voters. At least not until we have an idea how their polling turns out.

This is how you feel when your person... .


This guy is unhinged with so much unmitigated hate that it's ridiculous...

A clear attempt to change the subject from what was a poor performance
by Hillary Clinton.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Tonight's Debate!

From around the web:
  • Much Praise for Chris Wallace:
  • A more substantive debate
  • Trump's best debate
  • Focus Groups (Close, but a narrow Trump win)
  • No "game changing moments"

I believe Al Gore refused to accept election results?

Btw... once again, the left side of the media will try to dictate the "talking points of the debate" in coordinated fashion. This time it will be to play up Trump's statement about accepting the results of the election as if it was the only thing that truly matters. I am not sure if it matters, and even if it did... I don't think it negatively effects anyone who wasn't already a Trump hater.

I mean, what's the worst thing that can happen? He could fight the results in court and be just like Al Gore? Pretty sure those of you who think this was a horrible statement, were probably pretty keen on the idea of Gore suing?

Hypocrisy is the bedrock of liberalism...

Now there is proof

Two Democratic operatives are out of a job after a controversial conservative activist released undercover footage showing discussions of "busing" in voters and inciting violence at Republican rallies.
  • We've been busing people in to deal with you f-----‘ a------- for fifty years and we’re not going to stop now, we’re just going to find a different way to do it,”
  • “I mean honestly, it is not hard to get some of these a------- to pop off. It’s a matter of showing up, to want to get into the rally, in a Planned Parenthood t-shirt. Or, Trump is a Nazi, you know? You can message to draw them out, and draw them to punch you.”

- Promoting voter fraud? Check.
- Inciting violence at Trump rallies? Check.

What has been obvious to most of us, should not become obvious to everyone. Well everyone who isn't gullible and partisan enough to believe that these operatives are acting on their own, and not representative of how things actually work. Both the incitement of violence and voter fraud have been shown to exist. It's always been suggested that it was being done outside of the Party's behalf. Now we know better.

Bottom line: The Democrats are running a down in the dirt, ugly, sometimes illegal campaign. Quite frankly they don't care who gets hurt, as long as Clinton wins.

Now this doesn't suggest that the Republican Party is clean as a whistle. It simply suggests the truth. While we can suggest that that the Republicans are dirty. We know for a fact that the Democrats are.


The Hillary defense turns to "shit"...

Maybe you have heard, or maybe you just watch the Clinton News Network, but a Clinton campaign bus was caught red handed dumping it's toilets on a street in Lawrenceville Georgia. This quite obviously left a tangible "stench" behind that no doubt went along with the metaphorical stench of the 2016 campaign.

The campaign suggested that they did not know that they were actually doing anything wrong, (where have we heard to at before?) much less illegal.  Since they claim no mens rea for this shitty action, I would guess that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring charges.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

There is no media bias...

It would appear that Wikileaks has confirmed what most reasonable people have seen all along. Most of your media is in the bag for Democrats and specifically in the bag for Hillary Clinton in this year's Presidential election.

Let's start with the fact that the NBC Bush/Trump tape had been in their position since it was created (2005). Yet, they found no need to release it then. They found no need to release it in 2010. They found no need to release it when Trump announced his Candidacy. They found no need to release it during the entire primary season.

The media is 
completely fair!
But it would just so happen (by pure coincidence) that the tape was leaked to other news sources (to get past possible legal issues) less than a month before the election, when it was bound to cause the most political peril for Donald Trump. Couple that with the 24 by 7 coverage of a bunch of unsubstantiated claims from women basically repeating what was said on the tape and you sort of get the picture. Women, who also didn't bother to make any of these allegations public (in some cases waiting for thirty years) until it was politically convenient to do so. To be clear, back in the nineties many Americans never heard much about Paula Jones, and she was given an $850K settlement from the Clintons for sexual harassment in the workplace. Many Americans believe that the impeachment was about a blow job, because that's what the Clintons said (so that is what the media reported).

Meanwhile, there are very real substantial information being released by Wikileaks showing collusion between the media and the Clinton camp (Including some media outlets allowing the Clinton campaign to actually edit their stories), attempted collusion by the State department and the FBI, as well as proof that the President himself was lying about his knowledge of the Server and his own involvement with possible classified information being sent through that server. The President is now attempting to use "executive privilege" to prevent these emails from being released.

The more these emails are leaked, the more absurd it is becoming that Comey did not recommend any sort of charges against Clinton. From the unprecedented immunity agreements, to the FBI actually destroying evidence, to the FBI not convening a grand jury, offering no subpoenas, no search warrants... it becomes clear that this was only a serious investigation at the rank and file (many whom are close to rebelling). The powers to be were always going to squelch any possible indictments.

On top of that, these emails suggest that Clinton has contempt for Catholics, that they had plans to attack Bernie Sanders on his religion, and illegal coordination between The Clinton campaign and Superpacs... just to name a few of the many revelations (that are doing unnoticed).

Is any of this information being covered by your mainstream media?  Hardly. Not unless you consider CNN airing a segment where their broadcaster told Americans that it was actually "illegal" for them to search Wikileaks? Yeah... when it isn't enough for them to "not" cover the story, they try to scare Americans into not looking into it themselves.

All that being said, there are still many people no the left who simply refuse to see any media bias. Certain people assured me of this just over the past week or so. They believe things are exactly as they should be, and that everyone is being treated fairly. There is a word for these people... and P.T. Barnum told us one was born every minute.

Monday, October 17, 2016

The fall of the neocons...

Why we shouldn’t forgive the Republicans who sold their souls - Robert Kagan
(Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing columnist for The Post.)
These are the political leaders who are supposed to stand up to the world’s real strongmen in Moscow and Beijing. Yet they did not stand up to this bullying would-be authoritarian when all he could do was steal away a few of their voters. They would not risk five points in their primary campaigns to stop this man from becoming commander in chief. They were willing to damage U.S. national interests, as they define them, to avoid a close race. These are the men and women to whom we should entrust the nation’s welfare?
Let's be clear here folks. Robert Kagan  represents the very core of  the Neoconservative movement. In fact, many believe him to be one of the founding fathers of the movement. Like it or not, this movement has become increasingly irrelevant to the Republican Party, in large part because most of the policy that they pushed through the GWB years was simply not successful either tangibly or politically. It's one thing to be smart, to have a think tank, and to have at one time held much influence. But it's another to expect to continue to hold influence, when your policies no longer hold policy or political weight.

Obviously  Kagan in not the only Neoconservative to break with the Republican Party over Donald Trump. William Kristol, Johan Goldberg and others have been equally harsh. Still others (Like Charles Krauthhammer) has been back and forth as it pertains to Donald Trump. Overall, I believe very few true Neoconservatives are openly backing Trump, and many have given their support over to Hillary Clinton. The difference between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton in the minds of many of these tangent movements is negligible.

(By the way, isn't it amazing how many people in Washington who have supported failed policy now support Clinton? Should tell you something about the power of the "status quo" and the true insider fear of an outsider who actually might do things differently... but that's another topic)

The problem I have with people like Kagan and many others in the NeverTrump crowd is that they forget that ultimately politics is "supposed" to be about the voter. The Republican Party is supposed to represent the people who fund their campaigns and vote for them. Not the other way around. If the mainstream voters in the Party no longer support your policy, it's not their fault... it's likely yours.

Clearly I do not support much of the antics of Donald Trump, and I am unsure at times what his policy positions truly represent. But at the very least I accept that he has the support of tens of millions of Americans, and that those supporters should be respected (not demeaned). Moreover I do believe that Donald Trump has the best interests of the Country in mind and honestly wants to bring change to a broken system.  For many Americans, those two traits are enough, because they simply doubt that his opponent has either.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Nazi Republicans, Leave Town or Else

A North Carolina Republican Party office in Orange County was firebombed overnight, causing major damage and destruction. Thankfully, there was no loss of life. 
The explosive device was thrown through the window of the office, and the words, “Nazi Republicans, leave town or else,” were painted on a nearby building. The news comes less than 25 days before Election Day, as dedicated NCGOP volunteers and activists are canvassing the state and spending long hours getting out the vote and exercising their rights in a free and open democratic society.

Pretty sure this action fits the description of "deplorable". Couple this with the reports of a a couple dozen cars being vandalized at a Trump rally, as well as the recent assaults on Trump backers... and you can see how far into the gutter "certain people" have taken their belief in the righteousness of their own personal opinion.

Does Clinton really have this in the bag?

So "conventional wisdom" has spoken. Hillary Clinton is pulling away with the election. For what seems to be about the tenth time during the election cycle, the discussion has moved from whether or not Clinton wins, to how much she is going to win by.

This latest bit of wisdom is fueled largely by stories surrounding Donald Trump's alleged "Chester the molester" type behavior. As many as six different women have come forth to make accusations against Trump (albeit none of them offers a shred of proof). In fact, where there appears to be neutral witnesses or facts surrounding these allegations, those witness or facts seem to back Trump's denials. Of course, in spite of wall to wall media coverage regarding these allegations, those third Party witnesses or facts have (of course) not been widely reported. Go figure?

But to all of this into perspective, the latest NBC/WSJ poll suggests that the Donald Trump story as the "fourth most recognized story" in history of their polling.

Let that sink in for a few moments.

Meanwhile, these events have led to many polls moving in Hillary's direction. In a couple of case (NBC/WSJ and Fox) they have moved fairly drastically. The RCP average is at 5.5 points right now, and most prognosticators have Clinton with enough states to win the Electoral College with extra breathing room. Quite obviously, there is no hope for Trump, and rumors are circulating that Clinton may just not bother to even show up for the third and final debate (in order to solidify the idea that the election is basically over).

However, I am pretty sure that not all is as appears, and I say this for two reasons.

For the first time in about a week I got a chance to update "all" my spreadsheets and recalculate some numbers. What I found was that after putting all of the new cross tabs into my calculations (from the past eight polls released) that Clinton actually dropped a tenth of a point. While her top line polling numbers are improving, the cross tabs really are not (at least not with the pollsters offering them). Clinton is gaining slightly with Independents, but Trump has actually consolidated his support among Republicans. The difference appears (as it generally is with large polling swings) to be with the partisan breakdown with some of these polls. In other words, these polls are showing (right or wrong) that more Democrats will be voting and less Republicans. That "could" certainly be the case, but it could also reflect the fact that a Trump supporter may just be less likely to talk to a pollster right now.

Secondly, there are still several pollsters that still show Trump leading or with a fairly insignificant Clinton lead. Of the last eleven pollsters (I track) who released polls post Trump audio, three of them currently show Trump leading, two of them show Trump gaining, and one of them did not see any change from prior to the Audio being released. That being said, there are certainly other pollsters who are seeing large polling movement towards Clinton... lead by the NBC/WSJ poll that still shows her up by double digits (they have not provided cross tabs).

So to some degree what we have is the tale of two sets of polls. Those that are not reflecting much of a swing due to the Trump sexual allegations and those that are showing a fairly significant swing. This isn't the first election where we have seen this sort of poll "grouping" with almost two different sets of data points surrounding two different conclusions. I might expect that on average that these polls will converge somewhere, but that may not be the case this year.

There is no question Clinton appears to be a in a much better situation than she was two three weeks ago when Trump was closing in on her. I currently show her as the heavy favorite right now as most do.  Certainly, there can be no denying that she is currently winning the "October surprise" contest so far. But I also wouldn't start measuring for new drapes in the White House if I was Clinton (if for no other reason that the stole the originals when they left the first time and can probably use those).

The one thing we can be sure of in the 2016 race is that just when we think we know how this is going, something comes along and shakes things up.

Friday, October 14, 2016

Let me play devil's advocate

To be clear, I am not a fan of Donald Trump running around saying he want's to "jail" Hillary Clinton. I think it is nonconstructive at this point, and not very good politics. Even if he did plan on assigning a special prosecutor to investigate the State Department if he became President, I think he would be much better off keeping that to himself.

That being said, I do believe this is "another" example of faux overreaction that seems to follow Trump around like a cloud. Whether it be haters from the left (everyone), or the critics of the right (Krauthammer)... these criticisms are not very logical, for no other reason that a President has no such authority to "jail" anyone without due process.

More to the point, I do not find the idea that an incoming President might assign an independent investigator to investigate the dealings of the previous Administration to be that crazy of an idea. In fact, in this specific case I believe it would be a very, very good idea.

Let me explain.

From Watergate to Whitewater to Iran Contra to Valerie Plame... pretty much every major political scandal that involved possible legal issues for someone who worked in the Administration or other political arm has been assigned to a Special Prosecutor. The only exceptions have been the IRS and State Department scandals coming from the Obama Administration. In those two cases, it was determined that they would handle them "in house". This is where I take issue.

The reality is as much is it would be abuse of power to use the DOJ and FBI to frivolously investigate  your political opponents, it constitutes an equal abuse of power to use the DOJ and FBI to protect people "from" legal peril. A vast majority of Americans believe that Hillary Clinton and those working for her broke the law. There are almost "no" credible legal experts left who still to this day do not see laws being broken. The idea that you can get away with criminal behavior if your "side" controls the White House (thus controls the DOJ and FBI) is far worse in my mind than someone being criminally investigated by someone independent of the politics.

Moreover, the idea of retain power (or staying in power) is akin to determining innocence or guilt is the modern day version of "trial by combat".  There is a reason we no longer believe that "might makes right".

In other words, when it comes to legal questions surrounding politicians, I believe that other politicians and political appointees (including the Attorney General) should stay the hell out of it. In all cases. these investigations should be handled by Independent prosecutors.

The truth is that all of this would have been avoided had the President and Attorney General acted with the best intentions of the "Country" in mind, not with the best intentions of "Party" in mind. Had an Independent Prosecutor been assigned to the case, that investigation would have been infinitely more credible. Regardless of the findings in question, it would have been accepted my a much larger percentage of the population as legitimate. As it stands, almost nobody believes that the process was either independent, nonpolitical, or ultimately just.

While I understand that Gerald Ford "pardoned" Richard Nixon in an attempt to move the country on from Watergate, that situation was different. Nixon resigned his Presidency in disgrace. He didn't attempt to hold his Presidency and run for reelection.

The idea that the new norm will be for future Administrations to handle these investigations "in house" rather than through Special Independent Investigations does not take us in the correct direction as a Country.  Too many people feel that Clinton and her aides were shielded from legal consequences. Appointing an Independent investigator to look into everything (including the DOJ and FBI's handling of the situation) might be painful short term. But it would provide an important long term check to future Presidents, and encourage them to do what's right and make sure Independent Prosecutors are allowed to do what the law created them to do.    

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Will the third debate matter?

Let's face the facts boys and girls. This election is not about the issues. No matter how much anyone wants to believe differently, the issues don't matter. The only degree that the issues play a part is for Donald Trump to show he has a reasonable enough handle on them to appear competent, and for Hillary Clinton to show she has enough of a grasp to appear like some sort of wonk in comparison.

Reality has been that the ability to functionally state a case and make an argument has been infinitely more important than the actual argument that has been made. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find an argument by either candidate that would actually solve anything, even if they could push their ideas to fruition. They might as well have been discussing the pros and cons of various chess openings, playing trivial pursuits, or having a meaningless debate about who is the early favorite on The Voice. Americans probably could have deciphered as much from those interactions as anything else.

What this election has been about is Clinton's corruption and health vs Trump's racism and sexism. What it has morphed into is the Wikileaks revelations about Clinton corruption vs media revelations and accusations about Trump's treatment of women.

Problem for Trump is that in the Corruption vs Sex argument... sex will win every time.

This is not logical. It's not reasonable. It's not based on anything analytical. It's purely a specific attempt to manipulate emotions to elicit the desired response of negative feelings.

If we were logical, in a completely generic sense, someone who has shown corruption, obvious criminal behavior, and repeated work failures in their employment past, would be hard pressed to make an argument that they deserve a promotion. much less a promotion to President/CEO.  On the flip side... boorish statements made in private ten years ago, and unfounded accusations from three decades ago would probably bear little or no weight in an actual employment competition.

But the American public is not logical, reasonable, or analytical and both Candidates are fully aware of this. Trump has gotten to where he is by ignoring any and all conventions of logic, reason, and anything even remotely analytical. He has gotten to this point by pure persuasion and manipulation of feelings. Clinton was a little late to the Party, but after struggling with Bernie Sanders, she has abandoned conventional political warfare and for all practical purposes has taken the entire campaign even further into the gutter.

When Trump has gone low... she has gone lower. Unless, of course, you consider the high road calling your opponent a racist during a national debate, running 50,000 negative ads, and calling tens of millions of Americans a bunch of irredeemable deplorables who should not be even considered American.

All that being said... it's never over till it's over. Clinton has had a history of grasping defeat from the jaws of victory, and there is still plenty of time for the political temperature to change. I would offer that there are two main considerations to mull over moving forward.

The first (and most obvious) is that the current media "hype" over these decades old allegations will prove to be less of an issue with the average American voter than is generally assumed. At the end of the day, emotional attacks aside, people want to know what's in it for them. Does rejecting Trump because he may or may not have taken liberties with women actually make their life better? Why do you believe liberal women stood by Bill Clinton through all the sex scandals? Because they felt he was still a better option (than the Republican alternative) to promote what they wanted. At the end of the day we are very much selfish creatures.

The second is that there is still a reasonable chance that the combined efforts of the Clinton machine (complete with her capitulating media) will take this too far,  pile on, and turn Trump into some sort of Martyr. He's already laid the ground work with the "rigged" system talk. What's more rigged than an increasingly obvious planned personal assault on Donald Trump four weeks before the election? It is possible he could convince people he is actually the victim here. After all, If Bill Clinton could garner sympathy after shoving a cigar into the genital area of a 22 year old intern because the big bad prudish Republicans were picking on him... then isn't anything possible?

The only thing we know for sure is that these last few weeks will be anything but dull.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

If Hillary is just being a politician...

Maybe that is why so many Americans want a political outsider?

How you react to the emails will almost certainly depend on how you already felt about Clinton. A diehard Bernie Sanders fan who sees Clinton as a corporate Democrat driven by expedience will find confirmation in her vacillation over what kind of Wall Street reform to support, her backing of the Bowles-Simpson plan that would have cut spending on entitlement programs, and her musing in a paid speech that “you need both a public and a private position” on policy. In mentioning the dual positions, she was making a comparison to Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln and the unsavory political machinations Honest Abe had to undertake to achieve ratification of the 13th Amendment. 
Those who view Clinton as hopelessly liberal, craven, and corrupt will seize, as the Trump campaign has, on her stated “dream” of “a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.” They’ll smell conspiracy when they read hints that a Clinton campaign spokesman who formerly worked for the Justice Department got a heads up on a court hearing related to the release of her State Department emails. The Trump campaign said it was evidence of “collusion” between the campaign and the Justice Department. 
The most common thread in the Podesta emails, however, is that they show a political candidate being political. Not much more, and not much less.

Obviously the release of Hillary's emails have shown more than this particular author would like to admit, such as the pay for play scam she ran through the State Department, as well as the obvious collusion between the Clinton Foundation and her job at the State Department. But either way, I understand what this guy is trying to say. Hillary is not "much worse" than a normal politician.

On that point I would argue that indeed Hillary is actually "much worse" than a typical average politician when it comes to corruption. Mainly because no politician not named Clinton would still have a political future after Whitewater, China-gate, Travel-gate, and the adulterous mess that the Clinton's call a marriage.  But after all that she still managed to become Secretary of State, where most Americans (and nearly all legal experts) believe she broke the law with her reckless use of a private email server for confidential information, as well as her admitted intentional destruction of subpoenaed documents. She broke multiple rules (and possible laws) tying the State Department to the Clinton foundation. To say she also perjured herself under oath, would be akin to saying that the sun rises in the east.  To say she told bald faced lies to the American public over and over would be akin to saying the sun sets in the west.

Bottom line... the fact that some people want to argue that this sort of behavior is "acceptable" for our leaders, because it's just a politician being a politician... is why there will be tens of millions of voters supporting a brash, crude, fast talking reality television celebrity come November.

Off subject

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Michelle Obama during 2008 Democratic Primary

Hillary hates everyday Americans

“I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I’m running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion,” writes Podesta

I hate all of you equally!

Now quite obviously the left will argue that Trump is worse. After all, he apparently shows a lack of respect for woman (making him a misogynist). But Hillary simply has a lack of respect for everyday deplorable Americans of all sexes, races, and creeds.... making her a more palatable equal opportunity hater.

At least that it the way I see the left spinning this. Better to not show favoritism if you are going to look down on the American voter.

Latest excuse? Hillary lost debate on purpose.

You know... as to not knock Trump out of the race and all that stuff. Better to run against a wounded Trump than to run against a fresh replacement.

Hey, I got it. How about I perform badly
 on purpose for strategic purposes? 

Here is the reality folks... even if the GOP would have decided "yesterday" to try to go through the motions of replacing Trump on the ticket, it would take several days (upwards of two weeks) to effectively jump through all the hoops.

The chances of actually removing Trump from the ballot in many states would be next to impossible, and with early voting and absentee ballots already sent out by the millions, any GOP votes already in the books for Trump would be lost to a new candidate.

I previously have stated that it would be possible to change candidates at the last minute... we got it done in Minnesota the year Paul Wellstone died and was replaced by Walter Mondale last minute. While it would probably still be technically possible, it would have so much downside it would amount to effectively conceding the Presidential election to Clinton. The concept of replacing Trump with Pence is purely hypothetical at this point.

So no... the idea that Hillary Clinton purposely lost the debate to Donald Trump so the GOP would not replace him is possibly the dumbest point of view I have seen in a while. Given how many dumb points of view there have been in this election season, that's saying quite a bit.

She lost because she got outperformed by Trump. Plain and simple. The third debate with Chris Wallace as moderator promises to be her most challenging debate, as she will be facing Trump all by her lonesome (without the help of liberal moderators).

Monday, October 10, 2016

Here's why NeverTrump Republicans are wrong...

As of now, GOP voters largely want the party to stand behind Trump. Nearly three-quarters of Republican voters, 74 percent, surveyed on Saturday said party officials should continue to support Trump. Only 13 percent think the party shouldn’t back him. Read more: LINK
At the end of the day, the two Parties should belong to the people who vote, not to the establishment that runs the Parties. Unfortunately (as we saw with the DNC leaks) - that isn't the way many of the politicians in charge see things. They want to keep certain people in power and keep certain people "from" power.

Donald Trump has the loyalty at this point to a large majority of GOP voters. If you truly want to represent your Party (as a Republican leader) then you should respect the wishes of those who send you money and vote you into office.  Those GOP candidates who have pretty much stayed out of the fray as much as possible (eg: giving tepid support by stating he is better than the alternative) are doing quite well. Those who "distance themselves" from Trump are also distancing themselves from a vast majority of their core base support. In fact, it could be reasonably argued that if those who are currently "distancing" themselves would have followed along with the "he's better than Hillary" argument, there may not even be 13% of the voters who would like to see him dumped.

The Never Trump movement quite literally could cost the GOP seats in both the Senate and the House.  

Post Debate Spin

Focus Group reaction: Trump support doubled. Hillary support halved.

One of the biggest knockouts ever seen in a Presidential debate

I did not see her get rattled
I feel good about defending her performance tonight