ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, November 05, 2016

Bracing for impact

The Washington Post appears to suspect that Hillary is going to lose and is attempting to prepare Hillary's supporters for post-election shock and awe:
If the polls closed right at this moment (which they won't) and if the results in each state perfectly mirrored the current RealClearPolitics average of polls in each state (which they won't), Hillary Clinton would be elected president by an electoral college margin of 8 votes.

From her high in the polls a week or two ago, Clinton's leads in a number of critical battleground states have collapsed or evaporated entirely. The election could come down to one state with four electoral college votes that flips from Clinton to Donald Trump and, boom: A 269-269 electoral college tie, and a vote by the House of Representatives to decide on the next president — who, given the composition of the House, would almost certainly be Donald Trump.

On Thursday, that Clinton state with four electoral college votes raised its hand. Hi, New Hampshire! Two new polls, from Boston Globe-Suffolk University and WBUR-MassInc put the Granite State at a virtual tie, with the continuing trend in the state away from Clinton. That's Trump's 269th electoral college vote. Or, really, his 270th: Polling in Maine's second congressional district (which allocates one electoral college vote separately) has Trump in the lead. He wins the states he holds now and that one in Maine? President Donald Trump.

The trend is stark for Team Clinton.
Now, here is what has provoked this sudden outbreak of pessimism amongst the biased media. If you look at the Post's map of Hillary's theoretical path to Electoral College victory, the pitfalls are readily apparent.


Trump is not only leading in New Hampsire now, but is also threatening to take Pennsylvania, Michigan, Viriginia, Colorado, and even New Mexico. Consider the recent Drudge headlines:

COLORADO: TIED
MICHIGAN: TIED
NEW HAMPSHIRE: TIED
NEVADA: TIED
PENNSYLVANIA: TIED

What do you think "TIED" means in a world where the pollsters give 96 percent of their political donations to Hillary Clinton? Despite weighting their demographics in her favor, massaging their data in her favor, and attempting to create a narrative of Clintonian inevitability, they still can't present a credible picture of her winning those states.

In fact, they know, as does the Washington Post, that she's probably going to lose all those states. This "trend to Trump" is merely pre-election CYA meant to retain their credibility for the next national election. And, if you recall, it is exactly what I have been waiting to see in the case of a Trumpslide, they've merely left it a little later than expected.

Remember, Colorado, Virginia, Michigan, and even New Mexico were supposed to be in the bag for Hillary. She wasn't even campaigning or advertising in Colorado because her advisers were foolish enough to buy their own narrative. But look at what RCP, which operates on two weeks delay due to its poll-averaging model, now has as "toss-up" states.

AZ (11)    CO (9)
FL (29)    GA (16)
IA (6)    ME (2)
MI (16)    NV (6)
NH (4)    NM (5)
NC (15)    OH (18)
PA (20)    MECD2 (1)

That's 158 Electoral College votes. If Trump takes them all - and he now appears likely to take most of them - that's a 322-216 victory.

Events will take their course. But it certainly appears that the path has been laid for the glorious ascension of the God-Emperor Trump and the crushing of both the Clinton machine and the global establishment.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton now leads Trump by an average of just 1.7 percentage points nationally, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls. Less than three weeks ago, Clinton led by 7 points on the same model. FiveThirtyEight’s forecast model gives Trump a 34 percent chance of winning. On Oct. 17, the same model gave Trump a 12 percent chance.

Labels: , ,

161 Comments:

Anonymous Undocumented Civilizationalist November 05, 2016 8:08 AM  

Last night in Cleveland, Hillary held a rally with Beyonce and Jay-Z, essentially it was a free concert. 10,000 people came.

Trump held a rally, with no star power or free concert, and got 11,000 people in Hershey, PA. He drew more people than a Jay-Z/Beyonce concert.

Hillary is completely on defense now. Trump isn't defending any red states, as the polls in AR and GA both show him with 5 point leads and the plurality of NC polls show him up anywhere from 1 to 4 points, and the others show him tied there.

Hillary is defending about 9 states that when blue last time.

I like Trump's odds.

Blogger Mighty Lou November 05, 2016 8:10 AM  

In the course of the last eight years Maine, usually a democrat state, voted for a conservative Republican governor Paul Lepage twice in a row. This could be telling of which way they will vote come Tuesday.

Blogger Mighty Lou November 05, 2016 8:12 AM  

@1,

It is being reported that people began to leave the arena in large numbers shortly after the concert ended and while Hillary was speaking.

Blogger Lazarus November 05, 2016 8:19 AM  

And then the Supreme Court will intervene for the globalists.

Blogger Cataline Sergius November 05, 2016 8:21 AM  

While I do respect dh's opinions regarding polls, in my own experience at this point in the game the margin for error increases drastically due to sampling fatigue.

The only people getting polled at this point are "lonely shut-ins with landlines desperate for human contact."

Anonymous dh November 05, 2016 8:25 AM  

FYI if the House decides it does not have to
Be between Clinton and Trump. If the House decides welcome to President Ryan.

Anonymous 6184 November 05, 2016 8:28 AM  

The detail polls in PA show Hillary's 32-point lead in Philadelphia and the surrounding four counties in Southeastern hasn't changed. One out of five votes in PA is there.

The middle of the State hasn't changed much: large Trump leads.

What has changed: Southwestern PA, around Pittsburgh, has gone from Clinton +3 to Trump + 6.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell November 05, 2016 8:31 AM  

Lol, no. They'd be run out of town by voters of both parties.

Blogger Cataline Sergius November 05, 2016 8:32 AM  

Here is a more reliable measure when you are at an electoral end-game.

Who is really excited about their candidate?

Who is shitting themselves sideways in panic stricken terror?

Blogger Derrick Bonsell November 05, 2016 8:42 AM  

My offer to be mocked if Trump wins still stands.

IF New Hampshire falls it's hard to see Trump losing the popular vote though Dubya did just that. If it goes to the House it's hard to see them not going for whoever won the popular vote--otherwise it's political suicide.

Anonymous Cinco November 05, 2016 8:43 AM  

This could be Yuuge. Over eight years we are talking about the imprisonment of Hillary Clinton and much of her tribe ( <--kuru reference), four Justices SCOTUS, ideological cleansings at the IRS, State, AG and a return to pseudo-isolationism.

Good times, good times..

Anonymous Mister M November 05, 2016 8:50 AM  

Now we, even more clearly, see what Ron Paul was up against in 08 and especially in 2012. It took a billionaire with prime time TV exposure, and an even softer message to expose the roaches. And it's still not over - there are 118 years of filth to uncover and they won't go gently into that goodnight...

Blogger Cetera November 05, 2016 8:52 AM  

FYI, the Anonymous leaks have supposedly started:
http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/96217448

I'm not sure I believe it. Either English isn't the guy's first language, or he's just not that smart. This guy uses "bribe" when he means "blackmail."

Summary:
Clintons are serial pedos. Hillary has taken 28 trips to pedo island with Epstein.

He claims Obama has been served with a gag order, and any attempt of Obama to interfere or speak about the case will result in his immediate arrest and being charged with treason for interfering with an espionage investigation (Huma sending files and intel to Qatar and Saudi Arabia).

Huma is not denying anything, but not cooperating. Weiner is cooperating completely. They want to charge Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, and Donna Shalala under RICO. They are also saying Obama has transferred weapons and supplies to ISIS.

DOJ is still trying to block the investigation, but the FBI will go public if they do. Susan Rice is also trying to block the investigation, and may eventually be charged with treason if Trump and/or the FBI win/gain control.

NYPD and FBI may have informal press conferences in the next couple of weeks, depending on how things go.



There is nothing in there that really is anything new or already suspected. No video or pics yet, nothing ground breaking. I'm pretty skeptical at this point. However, the day is young.

Blogger Johnny November 05, 2016 8:53 AM  

I have been anticipating that Trump would beat the polls by a couple of points, wherever they happen to be near end game. Looks like a Trump win to me. And I sure as hell hope that Hillary loses, in the election and in the courts, and both if we are lucky.

Anonymous Undocumented Civilizationalist November 05, 2016 8:58 AM  

Maybe I am reading into things, but the biggest tell to me that Trump was probably going to win came in the last 3 days. Both Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan are hitting the trail for him. If the internals didn't show him tied or leading with a good chance to win, neither of those guys--who absolutely HATE Trump--who do this, especially Ryan who pledged NOT to campaign for him after the tape leak.

Now, it seems they realize they might have to deal with President Trump and are doing a bit of damage control.

Also, Halloween mask sales predict a Trump win. Seriously, they are accurate. LOL.

Blogger John S November 05, 2016 9:01 AM  

We should be grooming Paul "D-Money" LePage to take over the presidency after 8 years of Trump. Imagine the river of shitlib and cuck tears...

Blogger Lazarus November 05, 2016 9:02 AM  

Cetera wrote:There is nothing in there that really is anything new or already suspected.

Yes. American officials being charged with treason is almost a daily occurrence

Blogger Vi M November 05, 2016 9:02 AM  

It's interesting that the battleground states are all connected geographically to both the red and blue sides.

Except NH.
Buncha refuseniks there. I like their attitude.

Blogger Cetera November 05, 2016 9:06 AM  

Lazarus wrote:Yes. American officials being charged with treason is almost a daily occurrence
Someone saying that is new, but the "details" of the investigation aren't anything already talked about extensively.

Also, they are willing to arrest Obama and charge him with treason if he opens his mouth, but Susan Rice is actively thwarting the investigation, and she might be charged with treason if the FBI gains the upper hand over the DOJ? Some things just don't add up.

He also sounds like a non-native English speaker, but then also says he's sworn an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. That can be from an immigrant who joined the military, but it is just another piece that adds doubt in my mind.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore November 05, 2016 9:12 AM  

Great news to hear but in this race run as if the finish line is three meters past the actual finish line. It's not over.

Blogger Lovekraft November 05, 2016 9:14 AM  

Great yt vid by Molyneux with his allies VoxDay and Cernovich.

Just thinking about the concept of the Tower of Babel. Hubris and lust for power above one's position under God resulted in mass dispersal and confusion.

Is this what we are witnessing? Another time where God has to intervene and correct the overreachers?

Anonymous Praying for the Trumpslide November 05, 2016 9:17 AM  

The only way Hillary wins is through massive voter fraud, aka business as usual for the demoncraps. I recall a story, either linked on here in the comments or on Drudge, where they USPS employees were intercepting absentee ballots in Broward Co, FL and delivering them to the DNC to "help that poor person cast their ballot..."

Blogger Elocutioner November 05, 2016 9:20 AM  

Derrick Bonsell wrote:If it goes to the House it's hard to see them not going for whoever won the popular vote--otherwise it's political suicide.

No. That'd be suicide suicide. If the final facade shatters the violence begins.

Blogger OGRE November 05, 2016 9:22 AM  

@6 dh. Unless Ryan receives an electoral vote in the electoral college, he would not be eligible as a candidate in a House vote for President. The 12th amendment sets the procedure for the electoral college vote and any subsequent House vote for President. If no candidate has a majority of electoral votes in the college, then the House votes from the top three candidates receiving votes in the college. This is why the McMuffin people set out their plan to take Utah; if he wins those 6 votes and that is sufficient to send it to the House, he would be third eligible candidate to be voted President by the House.

It would take some extreme constitutional finagling for the House to vote Ryan as President, and there would be immediate injunctions and lawsuits. I'm not saying its beyond the realm of possibility--who knows anymore--but the procedure simply isn't there absent rogue electors.

Blogger Mountain Man November 05, 2016 9:24 AM  

I work and travel through NH regularly. She will not win here. Anecdotal evidence points to it. This is deduced through conversation, low amount of signs ( in peoples yard) and the blatant destruction of her signs placed in public places.

Blogger Wrangler November 05, 2016 9:26 AM  

@16 I like Lepage, but you should look into Gov Matt Bevin of KY. Super smart, badass who can't be pinned down by reporters. He is the next Trump.

Can't wait to see the talking media heads melt down next Tuesday night.

Blogger ZhukovG November 05, 2016 9:27 AM  

@dh: Though I am voting for Trump, if the electoral vote ties and this goes to The House; them selecting Paul Ryan makes sense. The default action of the government when a hard decision presents itself is to 'kick the can'.

The House selecting either Trump or Clinton almost guarantees very real blood in the street, possibly theirs.

Blogger Mountain Man November 05, 2016 9:29 AM  


Maine is solidly pro Trump. The only exception are the elite rich along the coast, moon bats who inhabit greater Portland and the obvious imported vibrants who inhabit Lewiston. ( they may be fresh off the boat and barely literate -but hell they're allowed to vote

OpenID luciussomesuch November 05, 2016 9:32 AM  

"He also sounds like a non-native English speaker, but then also says he's sworn an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. That can be from an immigrant who joined the military, but it is just another piece that adds doubt in my mind."

I didn't get the "non-native speaker" vibe. There are a few infelicitious word choices which could be autocorrect--an IQ test which, given the heat he must be under if for real, is entirely understandable (and he may be using a device he chooses not to finesse with).

Is charging Chelsea old? I had heard a rumor she was up in arms with mum and dad over money lost to Indian villages in need or something.

This two-week timeframe is disappointing, but then there may be anxiety not to create some sort of PedoKaine=safe generic Dem candidate upsurge at the last second, leaving a Black Mass backbencher with Trump's keys.

Regardless, I await the full leaks with bated breath.

OpenID luciussomesuch November 05, 2016 9:34 AM  

(an IQ test it's understandable he should neglect to pass--just as I neglected to finish my sentence)

Blogger Mountain Man November 05, 2016 9:39 AM  

I might also add that the Left has always relied upon the blue collar union vote ,found in the paper mill towns, to push their candidates over the top. However, due to the cataclysmic destruction wrought by our past two decade love affair with trade deals this is no longer the case. The few remaining mill workers left in the state will ignore their union bosses when behind the curtains of the voting booth.

Anonymous Undocumented Civilizationalist November 05, 2016 9:41 AM  

The one battleground state that I think Trump will lose is NV. It is the one state where in early voting Dems are absolutely crushing Republicans. Clark County, Nevada already has a Dem advantage of +70,000 in early votes. That will be hard to overcome on election day.

But, I don't think he will end up needing it anyway. The rest are going to Trump. :)

Blogger Banjo November 05, 2016 9:44 AM  

How in the holy hell is Georgia not solidly pro Trump!?

Fucking carpet baggers

Blogger OGRE November 05, 2016 9:46 AM  

@31 Thats why the Rust belt is in play. The Dems have shit all over their largest base--the blue-collar union worker--in favor of the multi-cultural, multi-sexual, multi-gendered coalition.

Blogger Mountain Man November 05, 2016 9:46 AM  

@32
Makes you wonder how much is blatant vote fraud pulled off by the Reid machine and his henchmen

Blogger Positive Dennis November 05, 2016 9:46 AM  

Ithink it will be a tie.

Anonymous Undocumented Civilizationalist November 05, 2016 9:47 AM  

How in the holy hell is Georgia not solidly pro Trump!?

A large influx of blacks moving back to GA from the north combined with a large influx of Hispanics.

Demographics will kill you every time.

Blogger Curlytop November 05, 2016 9:48 AM  

Ga is only a toss up state due to their type of voting machines. It is one of a few states that has the ability to commit voter fraud through fractional voting. Bev Harris discusses this. Because on votes alone, Hillary doesn't have it. Not even close.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 05, 2016 9:49 AM  

Zerohedge running with the Clinton crime family Foundation taking in a measly 1 million dollars from Qatar. I am so disappointed in the Clinton's, they initiated a genocide for a measly 1 million dollars, sad.

Blogger wreckage November 05, 2016 9:53 AM  

The Anonymous guy on 4chan appears to be writing very exciting fanfic.

Blogger T-Rav November 05, 2016 9:53 AM  

@37 Don't forget the massive influx of upper-middle-class, college-educated whites into the Atlanta area from outside the South. It's basically the same reason NC is now a swing state, it's just happening slower.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore November 05, 2016 9:56 AM  

@33 it's Atlanta. It's like Chicago dominating Illinois. Atlanta is a FULL SJW city with a huge electorate. And consider this: The main reason NY is "blue" is due to NYC and the surrounding areas. Once you get beyond the metro areas, everything goes "red".

Blogger YIH November 05, 2016 9:56 AM  

I'm still going with 'close', you could call the WaPo map 'confirmation bias', that's much like I thought it would fall.
PA and VA will ultimately go Lizard (the GOP hasn't won PA since '88) and VA is simply an extension of DC. You think non-mil .gov employees are going to vote against their pocketbooks?
I could see NH flipping, they're 'purple' (used to be solid red). NM is typically 'blue', they'll probably stay that way.
CO is the one Trump could pick off - for the reasons stated.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 05, 2016 9:56 AM  

Unless Ryan receives an electoral vote in the electoral college, he would not be eligible as a candidate in a House vote for President. The 12th amendment sets the procedure for the electoral college vote and any subsequent House vote for President.

Hey, no fair reading the actual rules. You're supposed to speculate and make shit up, but say it like you know what you're talking about.

Blogger Elocutioner November 05, 2016 9:58 AM  

Reading the 12th it looks like we'd have three scenarios if went to the house.

One, they simply don't choose and (if I'm reading it right) the VP becomes the President, so we'd end up with President Biden. NOBODY voted for Biden. Will of the people denied.

Two, there's a lag between the vote and certification of the results. An unfaithful elector or one of the weirdo states can throw one vote to a third candidate (like Reagan in '76) and the House elevates that candidate. Will of the people denied.

Three, they choose either Trump or Hillary.

If the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has to arbitrate an EC tie and, after the wave elections of 2010 and 2014 and Trump driving record primary turnout, they DON'T choose Trump? As I said above, that'll be the last illusion shattered. We're past the "we're just playing by the rules, it's a damn shame we lose every time but there's nothing we can do" phase. No bullshit shenanigans in the House will be tolerated. Paul Ryan will be held PERSONALLY responsible by tens of millions of very angry voters. It could very well be the spark that starts a new bloody revolution. That would be the last vote the Republican Party ever loses.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Anonymous Jiggy Rancher November 05, 2016 9:58 AM  

Diplomad's Law of Electoral prediction states that whenever the media says too close to call they really mean conservatives are going to win.

Blogger Curlytop November 05, 2016 10:00 AM  

All of this is true, but the blacks are divided. A lot can't be bothered to vote and a sizeable portion won't vote for her.

I saw someone(minority) based in the heart of Atlanta lament on SM how discouraged he was bc when he logged into FB or Twitter, he feels confident Hilldawg will win, yet when he is out and about, it looks hopeless. Very telling.

Blogger bob kek mando ( I are Spartacus ... and you can too! C'mon, give it a try, these crosses are way more comfy than they look ) November 05, 2016 10:00 AM  

6. dh November 05, 2016 8:25 AM
If the House decides welcome to President Ryan.



you're TRYING to get us all to commit suicide, aren't you?


and here we thought you liked us.

Anonymous a_peraspera November 05, 2016 10:03 AM  

So Hillary's spokespeople (the ones endorsing her on stage) have been: President Fuccboi Cryalot and the First Tranny, Khizir Khan, Alicia Machado the Latina Miss Piggy, the BLM "mothers of the movement" and now Jay-Z/Beyonce. All non-White.

Are you paying attention, Joe Sixpack? I didn't think the Dems were dumb enough to make this election a flat out White versus non-White racial divide but yep they are that dumb.

Anonymous BigGayKoranBurner November 05, 2016 10:08 AM  

Trump held a rally, with no star power or free concert, and got 11,000 people in Hershey, PA.

TRUMP routinely has to turn thousands away. I chose to not attend a rally because I figured I would spend all day with only a chance of getting in. Also Hershey PA Population in 2010: 14,257, while Cleveland has 2k registered sex offenders in the city limits.

last eight years Maine, usually a democrat state, voted for a conservative Republican governor Paul Lepage twice

Obama has been shitting Somali moslems on them. Lewistown Maine had a male nurse get beheaded AUG2015

Susan Rice is also trying to block the investigation, and may eventually be charged with treason if Trump

There is one that I expected in girl videos more than Crooked Eye Clinton.

where in early voting Dems are absolutely crushing Republicans. Clark County, Nevada

How to crush with early voting.
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/11/04/florida-election-officials-caught-filling-out-absentee-ballots-affidavit-alleges-floridafraud/

Blogger wreckage November 05, 2016 10:09 AM  

They're trying to pretend the black vote don't hate Hillary's guts. The very idea is hurting their souls.

Blogger Kona Commuter November 05, 2016 10:09 AM  

Sorry to be a nervous Nelly but I'm working myself into a state over all this.

Clinton is coming across as utterly Evil with a capital E.

I'm seeing Trump as a wealthy American Patriot. Willing to lose his fortune for what he sees as right. Right for America and by extension, Right for America's friends which my nation is.

So yeah, I'm worried. NATO at the behest of the US is provoking Russia. I'm no military / political strategist but Russia hasn't got much more wiggle room before she's forced to lash out. And for what? Syria? You want to die for f***ing Syria? I don't have anything against Syrians but damn it if I want to get in a shooting war with a nuclear nation trying to overthrow their nation.

So the upside is my wife and I spoke about it and we are both happier if we went out and bought another weeks supply of food and consumables. At best, we have another week we don't "have" to go to the shops. At worst we can hunker down for an additional week before mixing it with the Zombies.

May the Lord have Mercy on us all

OpenID luciussomesuch November 05, 2016 10:10 AM  

Incidentally, the advert that plays automatically atop the youtube homepage right now is a Hillary ad comprised of scared children sitting in the dark staring at a tv screen filled with the hateful, devisive, deplorable language of the bogeyman Donald Trump.

What do devil-worshipping SJWs always do?

Blogger Kona Commuter November 05, 2016 10:10 AM  

Feel free to call me a nervous Nelly or a Cuck. I DGAF. I'm genuinely concerned about my family and friends.

Blogger OGRE November 05, 2016 10:11 AM  

@45 Elocutioner. Under the 20th ammendment, if the House doesn't give a majority to one of the Pres. candidates then the VP-elect (as voted on in the Senate) serves as acting President. So we would likely be looking at Pence or potentially Kaine (Senate vote for VP is limited to top two vote getters for VP in the electoral college). Its unclear what exactly would happen at that point, whether the House can continue to vote for President until one candidate reaches a majority, or if the VP elect becomes the actual President, or if Congress can pass legislation to determine how the next President is to be selected.

Scenario Two is a possibility. That would at least open the door for a third candidate to be voted on in the House.

Blogger wreckage November 05, 2016 10:12 AM  

@53 project.... ile vomit?
@54 I'd call you "paying attention". The current international situation is profoundly fucked.

Blogger Basil Makedon November 05, 2016 10:13 AM  

The latest Clinton ad is a marvel of self-unawareness. Were the "kids" watching during the era of cigars and blue dresses?

Blogger Cail Corishev November 05, 2016 10:14 AM  

it's Atlanta. It's like Chicago dominating Illinois.

Yep. The rest of Illinois goes 60-70% Republican, but Chicago swamps us every time. When I saw that picture of five million Chicagoans gathered in one place, my first thought was, "Quick, get them before they scatter!"

Blogger wreckage November 05, 2016 10:15 AM  

@57 Tone-deafness is a common affliction amongst the aristocrats.

Anonymous Be Deplorable, Not Afraid November 05, 2016 10:16 AM  

I can't really bring myself to believe Hillary et al. are knowingly involved in Satanic rituals, however I've no doubt that they're doing the bidding of the Enemy. But a thought--the number of times I've heard people say, "Hillary could eat a live baby on TV and it wouldn't cost her a single vote," well, heck, maybe there's actually a video of that out there on a cell phone somewhere!

Blogger OGRE November 05, 2016 10:19 AM  

@58 Cail. exactly. This election is about urban vs rural as much as it is globalism vs nationalism and elitist vs populist.

Blogger bob kek mando ( I are Spartacus ... and you can too! C'mon, give it a try, these crosses are way more comfy than they look ) November 05, 2016 10:21 AM  

50. BigGayKoranBurner November 05, 2016 10:08 AM
Also Hershey PA Population in 2010: 14,257



accurate but irrelevant.

Hershey is a suburb of Harrisburg, the state capital and, for statistical purposes, is considered part of the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrisburg-York-Lebanon,_PA_Combined_Statistical_Area

it's 15 road miles between the middle of Hershey and downtown Harrisburg. that's closer together than innumerable points WITHIN the Atlanta metro area.

3rd largest population block in PA, after Philthadelphia and Pitt, bigger than Erie.

Blogger dh November 05, 2016 10:24 AM  

In fact, they know, as does the Washington Post, that she's probably going to lose all those states. This "trend to Trump" is merely pre-election CYA meant to retain their credibility for the next national election. And, if you recall, it is exactly what I have been waiting to see in the case of a Trumpslide, they've merely left it a little later than expected.

I actually agree with most of what you wrote here, except this. The events of the last 7 days should be ample evidence that in fact polls respond to events, not polls being conformed to fit reality late in the game.

Clinton had the worst week of her campaign, just before the election. If Trump wins, it will be because of events that just recently happened breaking the campaign out of it's mold.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr November 05, 2016 10:24 AM  

@42: The city-country divide is sharp in all "blue" states. Maryland isn't liberal, but it's dominated by three rabidly leftist counties. Even California...outside of Greater Los Angeles and the Bay area, there are damned few liberals.

Blogger dh November 05, 2016 10:27 AM  

Ogre--

Right, but if the vote is stalemated going into the EC, electors will break faith and nominate anyone they want so that the House can pick from whom they want. If it looks to be tied going in, either party could whip the electors to make better candidates for the House to choose from.

Which is how the House decides between President Biden and President Ryan.

Blogger dh November 05, 2016 10:30 AM  

What actually screwed up Georgia is the large number of white college educated hipsters.

Georgia, Texas, et all are all facing the same trend. Bigger cities full of liberals and aging and dying conservatives. The quote is true, demographics will get you all eventually.

Blogger Elocutioner November 05, 2016 10:31 AM  

@55 OGRE - Thanks. I haven't researched this topic before. Looks like section 3 is the relevant one, making the VP-elect acting President "until a President shall have qualified." Not sure how that happens. But if they don't make Trump the VP-elect how would they credibly make Pence the VP-elect?

"or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify"
So if a disqualifying event (such as a felony conviction) happens before being sworn in they're done? It'd be extremely hard to go to trial and convict in a few months, so unlikely that could apply this time around.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Blogger Cail Corishev November 05, 2016 10:33 AM  

Sorry to be a nervous Nelly but I'm working myself into a state over all this.

Remind yourself that we've already won. We won when Trump knocked the Bush Dynasty out of the race and won the nomination, while shifting the focus to nationalism/globalism. Thanks to that, people are talking about real issues and choices, instead of the usual liberal/cuckservative nattering over things like "comprehensive immigration reform" that we would have gotten from a Trump-less race. If you'd predicted just that much three years ago, you would have been laughed off as a crazy optimist.

Everything since then has been seeing how much we can run up the score.

Anonymous Garrulus November 05, 2016 10:35 AM  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Wonder how many Republican faithless electors illary spiritcooked.

Blogger pyrrhus November 05, 2016 10:36 AM  

@68 A very sensible perspective. Still, things can get extremely messy if the Satan worshipper gets into office somehow.

OpenID frankluke November 05, 2016 10:45 AM  

It all looks good for Trump. My associates who are rabid Hillary people (or at the least, anti-Trumpers) have gone silent. The last one I saw from someone from my class in high school said it's a fake by desperate GOP," but even she's not doing antiTrump memes anymore. At least not that I've seen, and those always found their way into my feed somehow.

My wife asked me last night if I had an election prediction. I said, "Trump crushes it in actual votes cast. With the Clinton machine rigging to overdrive, it's an open question."

Anonymous 11B November 05, 2016 10:46 AM  

Yep. The rest of Illinois goes 60-70% Republican, but Chicago swamps us every time. When I saw that picture of five million Chicagoans gathered in one place, my first thought was, "Quick, get them before they scatter!"

In 2000, Gore won the national popular vote over Bush by 547K votes. However, Cook County, IL (aka Chicago) gave Gore 992K more votes than they gave Bush.

In other words, remove Cook County from the 2000 election and Bush won both the electoral college AND the popular vote.

Blogger Basil Makedon November 05, 2016 10:46 AM  

We need to win both the EC count and the popular vote. This will minimize the ability of the GOPe to give it to HRC.

If the GOPe hands the presidency to HRC, ... all bets are off.

Blogger Cecil Henry November 05, 2016 10:50 AM  

What could be more scary than Hillary still tied (evidently) after all this damning information.

That in itself is a damning statement on American society.

Next week will be very turbulent either way.

Blogger pyrrhus November 05, 2016 10:50 AM  

"Right, but if the vote is stalemated going into the EC, electors will break faith and nominate anyone they want so that the House can pick from whom they want. If it looks to be tied going in, either party could whip the electors to make better candidates for the House to choose from.

Which is how the House decides between President Biden and President Ryan."

Theoretically possible, but would destroy both parties unless there was a plausible excuse, which there might be for Hillary. When John Quincy Adams won the election of 1824 in the House after Henry Clay (who became Secretary of State) threw his support to him, the supporters of Andrew Jackson decried the "corrupt bargain". That destroyed Clay's chances for the Presidency. This would be much much worse.

Blogger Ken Prescott November 05, 2016 10:51 AM  

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Trumpslide R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

Blogger bob kek mando ( I are Spartacus ... and you can too! C'mon, give it a try, these crosses are way more comfy than they look ) November 05, 2016 10:55 AM  

70. pyrrhus November 05, 2016 10:36 AM
Still, things can get extremely messy if the Satan worshipper gets into office somehow.



you guys are so silly.

IF Hillary is a Satanist
THEN what is the likelihood that Bill is not also?

Bush Sr and Bill love each other.

IF Hillary and Bill are Satanists
THEN what is the likelihood that the entire Bush clan are NOT likewise practicing Satanists?


the difference this time is that the US would be intentionally voting for someone who is practically out in the open about their Satanism.

at least previously we could make plausible claims to ignorance.

Anonymous johnc November 05, 2016 10:59 AM  

Remind yourself that we've already won.

We haven't won shit.

Even if Trump gets elected there's no telling if any of that stuff he talks about will actually get accomplished. And even if it did, that it would fix any of our problems.

Can we escape God's wrath so easily? Or are we just dumb enough to feel it's not due?

Blogger Epimandes November 05, 2016 11:00 AM  

Trump : USA :: Pinochet : Chile

Blogger OGRE November 05, 2016 11:01 AM  

@65 dh. it'd be possible via rogue electors. I think it'd be much more likely that there would be a campaign to have cross-over electors vote for the opposing party candidate than a concerted effort to get non-candidates eligible for a House vote. And that could put immense pressure on electors to not vote for a non-candidate...who wants to be the guy that gave Ryan one vote when theres a potential Dem elector that might vote Trump and end it right there?

@67 Elocutioner. Look back at Amm. 12. Electors vote individually for Pres and VP. If no VP candidate has a majority of EC votes then it goes to the Senate which does a straight up vote among the top 2 VP vote receivers. So the VP candidates in the Senate vote would be Pence and Kaine. Given that its a straight vote in the Senate as opposed to a state delegation vote like in the House, the Rs would almost certainly give it to Pence. If the Rs lose the Senate and the vote is delayed sufficiently then the new Senate could give it to Kaine, but in that case I'd think the R controlled Senate would go out of their way to vote before the new Senate is sworn in.

I'm not sure what exactly "qualify" means in that context, it could mean lots of things. It looks like it refers to a candidate possibly dying before being sworn in, or failing to receive enough House votes, or failing to qualify under an Act of Congress in the event a new President is not elected in the House. It starts to get very murky, and we'd probably be looking at the Judicial branch being involved by that point. But the gist of it would be that the VP-elect would be acting President until the situation is resolved.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein November 05, 2016 11:01 AM  

@68


Exactly.
Even if Clinton wins...she'll still be highly unpopular, under investigation, facing potential indictments and with no resonating *message*.

Even the Democrats are basically admitting her suckitude as a candidate when they (erroneously) claim that any other GOP candidate would be crushing her.

Blogger praetorian November 05, 2016 11:02 AM  

dh wrote:
I actually agree with most of what you wrote here, except this. The events of the last 7 days should be ample evidence that in fact polls respond to events, not polls being conformed to fit reality late in the game.

Clinton had the worst week of her campaign, just before the election. If Trump wins, it will be because of events that just recently happened breaking the campaign out of it's mold.



And so it begins...

The greatest rationalization of our time.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy November 05, 2016 11:03 AM  

Epimandes wrote:Trump : USA :: Pinochet : Chile
Oh. Okay.

Were you expecting a different response?

Blogger Ransom Smith November 05, 2016 11:04 AM  

I'm going to go all Alex Jones for a minute


Globalists in general call on the demonic to gain their power. They have no natural means. Hitler did, Stalin, Mao, Bush's seem too. Clintons too.

Globalism is about oppression and the Babalyonian system, which is a demonic based system.

Anonymous dagwood November 05, 2016 11:08 AM  

"In the course of the last eight years Maine, usually a democrat state, voted for a conservative Republican governor Paul Lepage twice in a row."

Seems like SOMEbody is finally (too late?) learning the hard-learned lessons of Somali enrichment.

Anonymous kfg November 05, 2016 11:11 AM  

"This two-week timeframe is disappointing,"

On the other hand, if Hillary loses the election it short circuits claims that The Donald stole it, Hillary is politically a dead horse and legally just some old, retired lady.

At that point all the rats will be fighting for their individual lives, rather than for their collective hold on government.

"The main reason NY is "blue" is due to NYC and the surrounding areas."

NY is solid red accept for the splotch of NYC Metro and the dots of Syracuse and Buffalo (Albany is purple and can go either way).

Earlier I predicted a walkover in NY even if Hillary ate a dead baby in Times Square, but if she fucked the baby first . . .

Syracuse and Buffalo are blue, but they're old school, blue collar blue. They hate elite blue. I actually think they are starting to break for Trump.

I'm actually shocked to say this, buy NY could be a close call.

Blogger dienw November 05, 2016 11:12 AM  

Hey, no fair reading the actual rules. You're supposed to speculate and make shit up, but say it like you know what you're talking about.

Winner!

Blogger Elocutioner November 05, 2016 11:14 AM  

I'm sure Congress, chock full of corrupt lawyers, can self-justify numerous ways to leverage arcane rules to arrive at novel interpretations in order to screw us out of a Trump presidency.

It's interesting to game it out, but at the end of the day 60 million Trump voters will see Trump => [Rep Congress] => someone else. And that is AFTER Hillary was caught red handed committing treason numerous times and let off because she supposedly didn't mean to.

That ain't fair dealings and is likely to be the very last straw.

Anonymous Cantostop November 05, 2016 11:14 AM  

I've been obsessively refreshing VP ZH and others for days now...

I do believe Trump will win and possibly even "big league." And dh seems to be doing his own CYA.

However, if after so much noise something uniquely damning is not leaked, I will be pissed. Regardless, I will remember remember this 5th of November.

My gut feeling is something will come out soon... But for me this may be the biggest disparity I've ever experienced between the map in my head, and the map being forced on us.

The suspense is maddening.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore November 05, 2016 11:14 AM  

dh offers measured commentary. I don't always like it but it seems sincere and honest. When dh gets on the decks, I listen.

Blogger VFM #7634 November 05, 2016 11:15 AM  

I actually agree with most of what you wrote here, except this. The events of the last 7 days should be ample evidence that in fact polls respond to events, not polls being conformed to fit reality late in the game.

Clinton had the worst week of her campaign, just before the election. If Trump wins, it will be because of events that just recently happened breaking the campaign out of it's mold.


@63 dh
I should point out that Clinton started "tanking" in the polls after early voting started and it became blatantly obvious that there was no possible way she was outperforming Obama. It had nothing to do with Comey and the FBI.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore November 05, 2016 11:17 AM  

Just noting the fact that Martin Luther's born-day is two days after the election - November 10.

Blogger VFM #7634 November 05, 2016 11:17 AM  

@Mountain Man

That's good news about NH and ME. The only question is whether New Hampshirites will be able to outvote the Massholes camped out in their state. Or Coloradans and Nevadanas the Californicators in their states.

Blogger Cicatrizatic November 05, 2016 11:18 AM  

Note that - in the event the Electoral College is tied at 269 - per the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, the House of Representatives must choose from the 3 candidates with the most electoral voters. In this case, that would just be Clinton and Trump. There is no way for the House to choose a random third party without violating the Constitution.

The strategy of the McMullin candidacy was to win Utah, possibly deny either candidate a majority of the Electoral College, and then be eligible for election by the House, since McMullin would then be on the list of 3. However, all of the final Utah polls show Trump winning by a decent margin.

Blogger Chris Mallory November 05, 2016 11:18 AM  

johnc wrote:Can we escape God's wrath so easily? Or are we just dumb enough to feel it's not due?

Read your Holy Scriptures. The nations will be judged by the Son of man when He comes in His glory. We are now under Grace until that day.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 05, 2016 11:20 AM  

Still, things can get extremely messy if the Satan worshipper gets into office somehow.

Oh, no doubt. But if it comes to that, I'd rather have a known satanist in office with everyone watching her, than a secret one being inaugurated while everyone admires Jeb Bush for being such a respectable good sport about the beating he took, and Republican congressmen say they're looking forward to working with her on comprehensive immigration reform and getting tough with Iran.

Anonymous Roundtine November 05, 2016 11:25 AM  

My gut says Trump will win, but my head says the Democrats have a demographic advantage that isn't going away. We will know very early if Trump is going to win because he will win NH and his vote total in a state like Massachusetts will exceed polling by at least 4-5%, indicating a massive swing of white voters that will translate into decisive wins in the swing states.

Blogger Silent Cal November 05, 2016 11:25 AM  

"We are now under Grace until that day."

Exactly. Thank you.

Blogger praetorian November 05, 2016 11:26 AM  

dh offers measured commentary. I don't always like it but it seems sincere and honest. When dh gets on the decks, I listen.

You're a nice guy Al.

And, by and large, I agree. Being data-driven is best. On the other hand, it can lead to what NTT calls being "intellectual-yet-idiot", particularly when humans are heavily invested in the thing being measured. This is why smart folks are constantly caught off-sides during black swan events.

Look at the above: the polls are acting exactly how those of us who thought they were being manipulated said they would. And yet, rather than accept that maybe we had a point and adjust his priors, dh just rationalizes it away.

Intellectual, very intellectual, and yet idiot.

Blogger Mountain Man November 05, 2016 11:30 AM  

@77
http://great-liberal-insights.org/+Reasonable/BushFamily.html
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2015/4215bush_fam_treason.html

Blogger Cail Corishev November 05, 2016 11:31 AM  

@90, same here. Any perspective is useful, if you have a sense of where it's coming from and why. Sometimes the ones you disagree with are the most useful, because they give you another way to test your own.

Blogger SemiSpook37 November 05, 2016 11:31 AM  

Consider this: in both of her Senate runs, she started out with huge leads over Lazio and Pirro. However, in both races, she trended downward near the end, but barely hung on to win both times.

So, to be fair, she's keeping true to form. Problem is that she's got so much damned baggage AND Trump appears to be a man on a mission. Both of those factors are going to blow her out of the water.

Blogger seeingsights November 05, 2016 11:32 AM  

I'm interested in predictive models. Three extremely strong predictive models give a Trump win:

Professor who has correctly predicted 30 years of Presidential elections correctly says Trump will win. His method consists of seeing if the incumbent party candidate fulfills various criteria:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-elections-correctly-is-doubling-down-on-a-trump-win/

Political scientist predicts Trump win. He looks at voter turnout in the primaries. He has correctly predicted the Pres. election since 1996. He also backtested his model to the early 20th Century, and come up with only one falsification (the 1960 election, which was close, and there likely was fraud).

A computer programmer, who correctly predicted the 2004, 2008, and 2012 election, predicts a Trump win. His computer program data mines the internet.
http://www.businessinsider.com/artificial-intelligence-trump-win-2016-10

Anonymous johnc November 05, 2016 11:32 AM  

Read your Holy Scriptures. The nations will be judged by the Son of man when He comes in His glory. We are now under Grace until that day.

If you think we're currently living in grace, you have your head in the sand. I don't know how bad it will have to get until many of you "Christians" wake up and realize just what the hell is going on.

Anonymous The OASF November 05, 2016 11:34 AM  

Paul Craig Roberts just recently wrote that he'd be shocked if the establishment didn't rig the election to MAKE SURE TRUMP WON! And PCR is no dummy.

Game. Set. Match... folks.

Blogger Mountain Man November 05, 2016 11:37 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Andrew E. November 05, 2016 11:42 AM  

I'm not sure I believe it.

All the reports coming out of what was found on Weiner's laptop re: espionage, treason, pedophilia involving the Clinton's are true. Too many credible people have gone on record with identical information.

Doug Hagmann has been at the front of this and he was on again with Alex Jones yesterday and had a sample of some of the "lighter" child porn material that someone involved in the investigation delivered to him to help solidify the narrative with people as the authorities continue to work.

Will the material be revealed before Tuesday? Not sure. But Trump will win a landslide without it. But it will come out at some point and the people will know. It will probably be much easier for NYPD and FBI to do their thing after Trump sweeps the country on Tuesday.

Blogger Mountain Man November 05, 2016 11:42 AM  

@93
Surprisingly most of the Massholes who have moved into NH ( north of the seacoast and Monadnock regions) are predominately white and fairly conservative. They do tend to be brash,loud mouthed but also hard-working, blue collar/tradesman types. They're not the old frugal yankees and they certainly have contributed to changing the state in not always a good way ( sprawl,"shit where you eat" Wlamartifciation etc.....but ill take them over any givemedat minority. They've fled to NH to escape the high taxes and oppressive regulations of Mass. Few get involved in town govt., outside of volunteering for the local fire dept. This has helped immensely in preventing NH from, politically, turning into Mass II. This demographic is very hard core Trump. He resonates well with them. From the seacoast/mondanock region south to the border - its a total different story. Many of the spores who have floated in are parasitical minorities.

Anonymous Andrew E. November 05, 2016 11:43 AM  

Link to Hagmann's latest interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf6jP_WfqYM

Anonymous BGKB November 05, 2016 11:45 AM  

"Hillary could eat a live baby on TV and it wouldn't cost her a single vote," well, heck, maybe there's actually a video

If HilLIARy ate the baby the same way Lena Dunham did a 3yo girl wouldn't it be more disturbing if she ate a dead baby? We might just see the video this week.

Trump : USA :: Pinochet : Chile Its a good time to identify as a helicopter.

Anonymous Roundtine November 05, 2016 11:49 AM  

Establishment lets Trump win.
Tanks the global economy to end Trump, nationalism and all domestic opposition.
Trump goes on TV and says, "Folks, this is why we can't have a central bank. Also, a lot of people are going to jail."

Blogger Mountain Man November 05, 2016 11:50 AM  

@84
So what ? Just fast and pray. As Martin Luther once said: "The devil is Gods devil".
In other words he's like a rabid pit bull on a leash. God holds the leash. He's only allowed to do what God gives him permission to do.Often times God says - NO. Sound crazy..not really- just read the story of Job.
Lastly Our Most Holy and Awesome God loves to hear the prayers of His saints and will many times ( but not always) answer them. That is why is imperative for those who are believers to pray,pray, pray and pray.

Blogger Mountain Man November 05, 2016 11:53 AM  

I have done less hunting than ever - these past two months- due to this freakin election. Its non stop dram that keeps me glued to the computer/phone screen

Blogger Quizzer W November 05, 2016 11:57 AM  

We will NOT know early in the evening if Trump won. The media will not call the battleground east coast states for Trump, they'll hold the calls. They do this every election. If Hillary takes them, they'll call them ASAP. They might even "accidentally" call Florida for Hillary before the panhandle closes.

Will the real results leak? Possibly, but all the news orgs use the same "decision team" after the shenanigans in 2004, I think it was. I have no idea if the alt media has a way to independently verify the election results.

If Trump is our president elect, it won't be known until after the left coast closes at 8pm EST. If it is genuinely as close as the polls say, it might be much, much later.

Blogger Quizzer W November 05, 2016 11:59 AM  

Grrr... make that 11pm EST.

Blogger dh November 05, 2016 12:00 PM  

Look at the above: the polls are acting exactly how those of us who thought they were being manipulated said they would. And yet, rather than accept that maybe we had a point and adjust his priors, dh just rationalizes it away.

For your position to be true, you'd have to pretend two things are the case: the polls are moving independent of results and that people don't care about events, especially the good sized chunk of people who don't pay any attention to politics until just before elections.

So on the one hand, you are arguing there is a conspiracy of roughly three dozen companies to rig polls right up until election day and also that Americans don't care about the fact that Clinton is once again under FBI investigation.

On the other hand are people like me, who have always said that the polls necessarily - as a mathematical fact must - tighten as they draw closer to the election because undecideds either make up their mind, or fall out of likely voter screening and therefore out of the polling all together.

I will make it super simple. Polls always tighten the closer to the election. In the history of polling US elections, the polls have never shown broad increases in undecided voters the closer to an election. People make up their minds ,or they fail to vote. It's axiomatic, they are the only two possibilities at play.

Also, finally, I am standing by my initial indications which are based on state-based polling and demographics, which put Clinton at right around 300 EV's and Trump in the low 200's. That is still the most likely result and the one I think will stand.

I will be extremely surprised and admit I was totally wrong if Trump breaks 240 EV's.

Blogger dh November 05, 2016 12:03 PM  

I'd also say that if a Trump slide occurs, which would be something like a 280+ EV win for Trump and/or a 3-5% popular vote margin, it will entirely upend the world of polling and political analysis, and throw the media into total disarray.

This isn't a bad thing, I just don't expect it to happen. Yes, there always could be a hidden cache of 10-20M voters out there, who are untouched by numerous different independent polls, estimates, and interest groups, I just don't see it materializing.

Blogger dienw November 05, 2016 12:06 PM  

@61. OGRE

@58 Cail. exactly. This election is about urban vs rural as much as it is globalism vs nationalism and elitist vs populist.

I think at this point we can safely say that the removal of whites from urban areas and their replacement with minorities and cosmopolitans was planned generations ago. As FDR declared, "There are no coincidences" in politics. A long chess game has been played and we have had our gaze averted; yet, who could have understood this except those who moved the pieces?

Anonymous Discard November 05, 2016 12:07 PM  

111. Roundtine: So Trump wins, the global banksters let the markets collapse, and the President makes it his business to see that our people are protected as much as possible while screwing our domestic enemies and their pets. There's going to be some kind of devastating economic reckoning, I'd rather it occurred quickly than this continued slow slide, and I'd rather that the Chief Executive was on our side. If for no other reason, if mass rioting breaks out, he could federalize the National Guard and keep them from interfering as the citizenry solves the problem on its own.

Blogger dienw November 05, 2016 12:07 PM  

Spotify has gone full Hillary.

Blogger praetorian November 05, 2016 12:08 PM  

I will be extremely surprised and admit I was totally wrong if Trump breaks 240 EV's.

I appreciate that hard value, and your commitment to a falsifiable hypothesis.

Allow me to reciprocate: if Trump finishes with less than 240 EVs, I will likewise declare the demographic eclipse of whites as having been completed, and I will likewise be shocked (I expected it in 8 years at the earliest, via TX by way of an amnesty)

Anonymous Trump's Avenger November 05, 2016 12:15 PM  

Unfortunately he was born in Canada.French is actually his native language.

Blogger dienw November 05, 2016 12:20 PM  


Trump : USA :: Pinochet :Chile :: Franco : Spain :: Jehu: Kingdom of Judah

Blogger bob kek mando ( I are Spartacus ... and you can too! C'mon, give it a try, these crosses are way more comfy than they look ) November 05, 2016 12:23 PM  

116. dh November 05, 2016 12:00 PM
People make up their minds ,or they fail to vote. It's axiomatic, they are the only two possibilities at play.



while that IS axiomatically true, you are begging your conclusion:
"Polls always tighten the closer to the election."


while historically this is undoubtedly true, there is NO AXIOMATIC REASON why the undecideds should not decide to break heavily for one candidate or another.

you assume, from historical results only, that undecideds magically will always 'decide' against the existing majority and thereby balance the scales as the day of reckoning approaches.

you are a priori ruling out of bounds the existence of preference cascades.

Anonymous David James November 05, 2016 12:40 PM  

As badly as I want her to lose, we cannot discount the very real possibility that she will win.

At this late date, with the email scandal revived, Ladbrokes has Hillary's odds of winning at 3 to 10, or an implied probability of 76.9%. Meanwhile, the same bookies have Trump's odds at 5 to 2 (I/P = 28.6%).

Fraud is the ultimate tool at her disposal. It's obvious that powerful forces want Trump to lose, and I believe they are not above fixing an election, if that's what it takes.

I would love to see Hillary go down in defeat. But Trump has made explicit, iron-clad promises to take down globalism, and those promises can only increase the likelihood that he will not be president. I hope I'm wrong. But the possibility of his defeat is something we have to be prepared for.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable November 05, 2016 12:43 PM  

It would take some extreme constitutional finagling for the House to vote Ryan as President, and there would be immediate injunctions and lawsuits. I'm not saying its beyond the realm of possibility--who knows anymore--but the procedure simply isn't there absent rogue electors.

Heh. "Injunctions and lawsuits." With democracy dead, and the posterity of the Founders still alive. You're funny.

Blogger VFM #7634 November 05, 2016 1:16 PM  

FWIW, the LATimes/USC-Dornsife poll not only has Trump at a record high, but is showing that Latinos are surging toward him.

Also, older voters, who tend to vote most on Election Day, are moving toward him.

And, in fact, so are women.

Now, it's a possibility of course that the LATimes poll is crap... but is it?

Blogger Cail Corishev November 05, 2016 1:28 PM  

I'd also say that if a Trump slide occurs, which would be something like a 280+ EV win for Trump and/or a 3-5% popular vote margin, it will entirely upend the world of polling and political analysis,

It should, but it won't. They still have a few days to shift to a dead heat or a slight edge for Trump, so if Trump wins by 3%, that's still within the margin of error. If there are questions about why they were off the mark earlier, they can just point to the unusual volatility of this election. I don't think they'll have much trouble talking their way out of it. Now, if Trump won by 10%, it'd be different.

"Media disarray," though, that we can agree on. They will be scrambling for sure.

Anonymous VFM #6306 November 05, 2016 1:59 PM  

dh, if polls simply and accurately respond to events, then they are completely irrelevant until election day. They are no more forecasting events than a final score is predicting momentum in the finished football game.

Anonymous VFM #6306 November 05, 2016 2:04 PM  

Egads David, you must really want Trump to grab you, or you wouldn't try to be such a pussy.

Who the hell cares if Hillary wins? Revolution and hard times either way. Her way just means we get to use more of our lampposts.

Anonymous David James November 05, 2016 2:32 PM  

Egads David, you must really want Trump to grab you, or you wouldn't try to be such a pussy.

Who the hell cares if Hillary wins? Revolution and hard times either way. Her way just means we get to use more of our lampposts.


You cheered up my day, thanks

Blogger VD November 05, 2016 2:56 PM  

I would love to see Hillary go down in defeat. But Trump has made explicit, iron-clad promises to take down globalism, and those promises can only increase the likelihood that he will not be president. I hope I'm wrong. But the possibility of his defeat is something we have to be prepared for.

Stop cucking. Only a complete moron is unaware that what is possible is, in fact, possible.

Blogger VD November 05, 2016 3:01 PM  

We will NOT know early in the evening if Trump won. The media will not call the battleground east coast states for Trump, they'll hold the calls. They do this every election.

In other words, we will know. This really isn't that hard. If Hillary isn't declared the winner of New Hampshire as soon as she is declared the winner of Massachusetts, then Trump probably won it. Same goes for North Carolina.

Personally, I think North Carolina will be a sufficient indicator. Certainly NC, MI, and PA. If Trump takes two of those, he wins.

Blogger D. Bay November 05, 2016 4:13 PM  

Trump won't win Wisconsin, Michigan or especially Pennsylvania. Now Ohio? Maybe. But how many times in how many elections are the Republicans expecting Pennsylvania to go for them and yet it never does?

Hillary will most likely win the election, despite everything she still has had a consistent narrow lead in most polls. And she has had a consistent lead in the Electoral College.

Real Clear Politics

Other than a clock being right stopped twice a day with the Brexit win, most alt-right predictions for political elections haven't been very good.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 05, 2016 4:18 PM  

Epimandes wrote:Trump : USA :: Pinochet : Chile
Now you're flirting.

Anonymous Yay Trump November 05, 2016 4:21 PM  

Hillary will most likely lose the election. But anyone claiming Trump can only barely eke out a win in fricking OH (which he's had strong polling for 4eva) is obviously bolsheviking.

Blogger praetorian November 05, 2016 4:26 PM  

Daily Reminder:

Hillary Win -> Amnesty -> Blue TX -> Game Over

Blogger Ken Prescott November 05, 2016 4:28 PM  

I want to watch Nancy Pelosi shouting "PALOMINO!" over and over again on Election Night...

Blogger VFM #7634 November 05, 2016 4:32 PM  

According to accuratepolitics.com, Trump has pulled ahead in Colorado... the state that does only mail-in voting.

Anonymous wEz November 05, 2016 4:44 PM  

White women, Latinos and Blacks will sadly doom Trump with a large turnout. I voted here in MN yesterday and it was all women and minorities. Democrats own minority voters and have a hell of a strategic ground game going in high density urban areas, building what I believe to be an insurmountable lead. Dh will be proven right. At the end of the day, I think she wins the electoral college fairly easily because of minorities, helped on by women. I think she also wins the popular vote by 4-6 percent. We will see, I would LOVE to be wrong.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 05, 2016 5:05 PM  

Al From Bay Shore wrote:dh offers measured commentary. I don't always like it but it seems sincere and honest. When dh gets on the decks, I listen.


No @dh is emotionally invested in Trump losing. When he gets on, he rationalizes as his hamster goes into overdrive.

@dh, the contention that the polls must tighten as the election approaches assumes that somehow, the undecided break consistently for the candidate that is behind, or that the partisans of the leading candidate consistently give up. This is not just counter-intuitive, it's insane.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey November 05, 2016 5:54 PM  

@Cetera
From the linked 4chan post:

"It is also worth mentioning M16, Mossad, Interpol & independent civilians like Mr. Julian Assange have also put their lives and careers on the line to help expose this hostile takeover of the U.S. Government"

Our greatest ally.

Blogger Natalie November 05, 2016 6:33 PM  

The concern trolls are thick on the ground today.

The truth is that Trump is pulling in gays, factory workers, blacks, women, etc in a way that the GOP has only dreamed of doing for the past 20 years. What part of "populist" isn't getting through to these guys? If his only demographic is aging white men who didn't go to college then why are they all walking around like someone gave them a sand burr wedgie?

Blogger Quizzer W November 05, 2016 7:01 PM  

@33 VD

Not necessarily. The states may actually be too close to call.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr November 05, 2016 7:14 PM  

For the sake of the NeverTrumpers, I pray he wins. It will go hard on the quislings otherwise. They were betting on an overwhelming defeat to let them whip the populist wing into docility. Should Trump lose narrowly, the NeverTrumpers will be seen as the cause.

Blogger Basil Makedon November 05, 2016 8:36 PM  

@99 I think it would technically be a Grey Swan. Hard to call an event that requires the vote of 60M people a completely unexpected event.

@133 Completely agree. The Hoax Media (nice term btw, Cerno) will rush any bad news, and slow walk any good news. I wouldn't expect them to call NH as quickly as Mass., but if NH is even call-able, that will be a Harbinger of everything else.

Blogger dh November 05, 2016 10:55 PM  

@dh, the contention that the polls must tighten as the election approaches assumes that somehow, the undecided break consistently for the candidate that is behind, or that the partisans of the leading candidate consistently give up. This is not just counter-intuitive, it's insane.

There are always at least three choices in an election for a candidate: Candidate A, Candidate B, or Don't Vote. As election day nears, the ratio of people choose A OR B as opposed to Don't Vote, increases, until it reaches the final turnout projection.

There are different theories as to why the polls tighten as the number of (C) decreases. I personally subscribe to the theory that people aren't really undecided, and that people are more or less partisan no matter what. This election sort of confirms that, in that you have almost no movement on either side - on one side you have a really nasty person, who is a serial liar, who has this whole FBI problem, and on the other, you have a person who has never been above 0 net favorability, and overall has an image problem with a lot of voters. Even though some GOP "leaders" abandoned him, the masses never really did and even when they started to, quickly have been coming home (aka death of NeverTrump).

You are right that it's not mathematically provable that the race will literally always tighten - all the undecideds could break for the leader. That generally has never happened, not even going back to Reagan, but it *could* happen. From a voter-behavior model, people who are undecided are typically waiting to make up their mind because they are unhappy with the leader. This is especially true with incumbents, like Pres. Obama in 2012, when the final national polling showed him up by a single point or maybe two, but he ended up winning more handily, by something around 4-pts nationally. People who were undecided were waiting for a reason to not for for the incumbent, or to vote for the challenger, and it never came, and so they went back to the leader.

It is not insane to observe that polls consistently and reliably tighten as the election draws near. There isn't a case of it becoming looser and more undecided closer to election day since modern polling started (at least in the last 40 years). It is true that this one could break the mold, but all the evidence I can see from this election is that it's not going to happen. I mean, if all the Trump voters have stayed with him all the way past Pussygate, what would make them vote for Clinton at this point? Same with all the Clinton voters, whats going to change their mind now? I just don't see a case for it, and it's not been reflected in any numbers. The NeverTrump factions have never shown up in the numbers, they're just too minor an impact.

No @dh is emotionally invested in Trump losing. When he gets on, he rationalizes as his hamster goes into overdrive.

I am emotionally invested in being proven right, I'll admit it. I would be happy to be wrong, and I would relish the chance to find out where I went wrong, but I think the combination of extreme partisanship, weak candidates, and demographics baked this cake half a year or more ago. People are not voting outside of their demographic in any substantial numbers.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 05, 2016 11:08 PM  

dh wrote:People are not voting outside of their demographic in any substantial numbers.
Which makes the entire result dependent on turnout models. Which is what we've been telling you.

BTW, Trump is at 53% favorability in the last poll I saw (Rassmussen? can't remember)

Anonymous JimR November 05, 2016 11:08 PM  

"There are always at least three choices in an election for a candidate: Candidate A, Candidate B, or Don't Vote. As election day nears, the ratio of people choose A OR B as opposed to Don't Vote, increases, until it reaches the final turnout projection."

Your model ignores the possibility that people might switch from "A or B" to "Not vote"

Blogger Southern Man November 05, 2016 11:29 PM  

"Tied" is bad news, as the margin of fraud is 5%.

Blogger dh November 05, 2016 11:47 PM  

BTW, Trump is at 53% favorability in the last poll I saw (Rassmussen? can't remember)

I just looked that up, yup 53% Oct 30-Nov 2. That's pretty amazing actually. I don't think he's been above 50% in any poll this entire cycle. It's something of an outlier, but also that question has stopped being asked routinely this late in the game, so it might reflect reality. That would be fairly amazing.

Which makes the entire result dependent on turnout models. Which is what we've been telling you.
I am not disputing that. But you cannot turn out that which does not exist. There aren't enough white voters or other Trump voters for Trump to get to 270.

Your model ignores the possibility that people might switch from "A or B" to "Not vote"

I am not ignoring that, I'm minimizing it, because it doesn't really happen often. There's no evidence that any sizable number of people have changed their mind this election. Despite all the persuasion talk, there is no data-based evidence to merit considering that there have been any serious numbers of changeovers outside of the regular strata of expected crossovers.

As far as "Not Vote", that's captured in the likely voter screen. At this point, for example, if you can't name your polling place with confidence (for example), you are not captured in any polling.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 05, 2016 11:52 PM  

dh wrote:I just looked that up, yup 53% Oct 30-Nov 2. That's pretty amazing actually. I don't think he's been above 50% in any poll this entire cycle. It's something of an outlier, but also that question has stopped being asked routinely this late in the game, so it might reflect reality. That would be fairly amazing.


Actually I think it's self-confirmation bias. Once you've decided to vote for Trump, or anyone really, you tend to start thinking better of him.
So I take that as one more indication of Trumpenslide. Probably a better metric than yard signs and internet likes.

Blogger dh November 05, 2016 11:57 PM  

So I take that as one more indication of Trumpenslide. Probably a better metric than yard signs and internet likes.

I agree with that.

Blogger G-S. November 06, 2016 12:09 AM  

Trump needs Nevada and Florida. He won't get either. Utah is usually the farthest right state with usually 60+ for republicans. That poll shows him 6 points ahead of Clinton. Nothing to be proud about.

Blogger SelectaCorp November 06, 2016 12:21 AM  

Traditional political analysis and predictions remain bankable.

Until they aren't.

I'll go with Sundance's CTD analysis over DH. It has been fairly consistent for about a year and a half, with a lot more data points and trends than have been offered anywhere else. Either hypothesis is possible:

Sundance: The existing model is no longer predictive
Dh: The existing model remains sound and predictive

They can't both be right.

Also, fwiw, Jazz Hands revealed on the latest Fast The Nation he has been fed Dem internals and they match up with latest state polls (ie. swinging to Trump). We don't know if this is true but I tend to trust JazzHands.

Also, if the Dems agreed with Dh's analysis, their campaign schedule, ad buys, etc wouldn't reflect the defensive stance they have now taken in terms of defending their 'Blue Wall'. They think they are in trouble. I think they are too.

I take Dh's claim to want to see a more positive outcome for Trump as sincere, though he continues to anticipate otherwise. I'm not sure what more it would take at this stage to suggest to him his analysis is unduly pessimistic other than everything else we've seen thus far.

Academic. In three days, all will be revealed.

Blogger VFM #7634 November 06, 2016 12:56 AM  

Your model ignores the possibility that people might switch from "A or B" to "Not vote"

I am not ignoring that, I'm minimizing it, because it doesn't really happen often.


@151 dh
I think a more germane example would be the fall in black voter turnout from Obama levels.

In addition, the LATimes poll (which is usually pooh-poohed due to its favorability to Trump) has Trump doing better with both Latinos and women lately.

Anonymous wEz November 06, 2016 1:41 AM  

I think Latinos will be the doom group for Trump. They're such a growing demographic and they're also voting 100% above their pace from last pres go around, and they had a huge impact on that last presidential election.

Anonymous Yay Trump November 06, 2016 1:42 AM  

dh just ignores the demographics when they don't act like he says they will. It's to be expected.

Blogger dh November 06, 2016 1:15 AM  

In addition, the LATimes poll (which is usually pooh-poohed due to its favorability to Trump) has Trump doing better with both Latinos and women lately.
The LATimes results are not a poll, it's a tracking survey of the same people overtime. They ask the same 3000 people over the whole election who they are planning on voting for. This is useful for estimating change, but not much else.

He won't get either. Utah is usually the farthest right state with usually 60+ for republicans
Utah is a special case because Trump is especially unpopular among Mormons and other dedicated Christians. 2012 was a high-water mark because a Mormon was running. In 2008, a more normal year, the margin as +28 for the GOP, still a huge win, but not as much as Hawaii went for Obama, for example.

Also, if the Dems agreed with Dh's analysis, their campaign schedule, ad buys, etc wouldn't reflect the defensive stance they have now taken in terms of defending their 'Blue Wall'. They think they are in trouble. I think they are too.
I tend to agree with this, but also, there is no reason for the Democrats not to go all out. What you have them do, not campaign because they think they are going to win? They use data to pick their weakest states. The late change in some state-based polls is surely scary for them, but I don't see the coutours changing radically.

I take Dh's claim to want to see a more positive outcome for Trump as sincere, though he continues to anticipate otherwise. I'm not sure what more it would take at this stage to suggest to him his analysis is unduly pessimistic other than everything else we've seen thus far.
I just want to point out I can't vote in this election, and I don't really "want" anyone in particular to win. I would like to see Trump win because of the lulz. I dislike Clinton, but mostly because she is a horrible politician and will probably feel the need to have a few wars to prove she has balls. Also her advisers are fairly terrible. I'd rather trust Trump's close-family to reign him than Clinton's people who literally appear to have never told her know in 20+ years.

Traditional political analysis and predictions remain bankable. Until they aren't.
This is a good point, and one that's worth making. I have seen nothing in the data that makes me think this election will be any different. It's hard to imagine what shift the electorate would happen without being revealed in polling or other state-based indicators.

I think a more germane example would be the fall in black voter turnout from Obama levels.
Right, this is the "don't vote". All the modeling for this year's race in terms of voter turnout presumes that black turnout returns to it's pre-Obama mean. If black turnout delivered at 2008 and 2012 levels, for Clinton, the race would be over.

I think Latinos will be the doom group for Trump. They're such a growing demographic and they're also voting 100% above their pace from last pres go around, and they had a huge impact on that last presidential election.
This is not a bad prediction. GW Bush's high water mark may be the most votes any GOP candidate ever gets from Hispanics. The early indication in states with large populations of Hispanics and Latino's is not good for the GOP. That turnout, besides killing the White House for the GOP for at least a generation, may well cost them them the Senate this year.

Blogger SelectaCorp November 06, 2016 1:35 AM  

"same people overtime"
Incorrect. There is a consistent base but they change the rest of the base (I think it is 1/3rd consistent, 2/3rds refresh)

"there is no reason for the Democrats not to go all out"
Go 'all out' is impossible. One must make choices based on time and resources. You must prioritise. The Dem priorities suggest a significant shift from offensive (ie focus on TX, GA, AZ) to defensive (MI, FLA, NC)

"I have seen nothing in the data"
Then you have excluded whole categories of mounting data such as primary turnout, early voting pattern changes, social media metrics, etc. You have decided to treat the Trump candidacy as analogous to previous GOP presidential campaigns. I suggest this is an error on your part. Trump's candidacy is so divergent from past GOP campaigns that there is a lot less historical data on which to base your conventional thinking.

"I would like to see Trump win because of the lulz"
I think this nihilism and distance from American political history is what may blind you to what is really going on. You are discounting the historical dimensions of this race because they are alien to you, for whatever reason. This is akin to the partisan combatant vs non combatant neutral position. It is true that the partisan may have less objectivity but their engagement in the battle also gives them a perspective the observer will never have. It sharpens their judgement the closer they are to the conflict. Because of their very personal commitment, they tend to have a firmer internal sense of dynamic of the conflict than an observer does. I'd suggest your essential neutrality (except for the lulz) prevents you from detecting the trends only the engaged will perceive (on either side).

Fence sitters have the right to comment and predict but are essentially REMFs.



Anonymous SciVo de Plorable November 06, 2016 2:11 AM  

This is a good point, and one that's worth making. I have seen nothing in the data that makes me think this election will be any different. It's hard to imagine what shift the electorate would happen without being revealed in polling or other state-based indicators.

This is a realignment election. Left/right is intrinsically meaningless, so it means whatever people care about. And it's gone from the kayfabe of globalist crony socialist vs. globalist crony capitalist to the real contest of globalist crony socialist vs. nationalist populist freedom-lover.

And none of us will answer your goddamn polls when the best-case scenario is to fail to get doxxed.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts