My Twitter account is just getting started. Follow me here!
 

 

Pre-debate projection (See Polls)

In all battlegrounds, Trump leads by 1.2 points. My projection assumes Scenario 3 + Nevada and 3 of Maine's 4 electoral votes

Using polls alone, Trump is at 275 electoral votes.

Scenario 1 (270EV): Trump loses CO, PA, ME and NV, wins FL, NC, OH, WI, IA, AZ - Trump +1.70

Scenario 2 (276EV): Trump loses CO, PA, ME, wins FL, OH, NC, WI, IA, NV, AZ - Trump +1.88

Scenario 3 (269EV): Trump loses PA, ME, NV and WI, wins FL, OH, NC, IA, AZ, CO - Trump +2.76

 

Another Colorado poll shows Trump even

CBS Pollster YouGov has found the two candidates tied in Colorado, Hillary at 40 and Trump at 39. The poll surveyed 991 "likely voters" and has a margin of error of 4.4%.

I have criticized YouGov in the past (see below) for not using a rigorous enough likely voter screen. It seems that the same problem evident in other YouGov state polls are present here.

Despite the seemingly inadequate likely voter screen, Donald Trump nevertheless draws to a tie in the state.

See:

CBS pollster using deceptive tactic to pad Clinton numbers

More CBS/YouGov "likely" voter polls that are really registered voter polls

 

Flag of Colorado 

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

Hillary AD-vantage gone, Trump on the march

Trump has three advantages that are just kicking in that each could give Trump a lasting bump that can put him over the top. If they all materialize, it is hard to see how Trump loses.

(1) King NeverTrump Surrenders

Ted Cruz endorsed Trump when the race was already tied. Cruz had a hardcore following around the country, and his steadfast opposition no doubt persuaded some of his supporters to also withhold support. It will not persuade the establishment holdouts to change their minds, but they really just don't seem to matter much this time around.

Ted Cruz (25331357900) 

Hillary has already consolidated the support of her fellow Democratic pols. This change of heart for Ted Cruz can only help Donald Trump and likely will.

(2) Low debate expectations, courtesy of Hillary's disqualify Trump strategy

Usually the opposing campaigns attempt to lower expectations for their candidates in debates. This time around, nothing either campaign says will matter. The expectations for the debate were set by Hillary's strategy of attempting to disqualify Trump early on. By utterly ridiculing Trump as a sexist, racist know-nothing, and failing to actually disqualify Trump in enough voters' minds, Hillary has handed Trump the victory in the debate expectations game.  

Trump has made this race a tie with half the country thinking he is unqualified. If he performs just up to an average level in the debates, at least some voters who had previously disqualified him in their minds will open up to voting for him. He only needs a few voters to change their minds, and he may not even need any, so this really presents a problem for Hillary.

How can she possibly further disqualify him more than she already has? She will spend more money attacking him, but everyone in battleground states has heard it all, which brings us to the last, and most substantial, advantage Trump now possesses.

(3) Hillary Ad-vantage gone

Perhaps no advantage is more stark than Trump's new advertising advantage. Because Trump has essentially not played in any substantial way in advertising in the general election and still managed to make it a tie, his new spending should give Trump a durable lead in critical battlegrounds.

The two groups who could guarantee a Trump victory are millennials and minorities. If these groups do not turn out in big numbers for Hillary, she will lose. She is currently struggling to motivate these groups, but if she was ever going to motivate them, it should have already happened.

Hillary has already had her uncontested crack at millennials and minorities on television, and the best she could manage was a tie. Now Donald Trump will even the playing field in the ad dollars battle, and that should put him ahead. Trump has an easily accessible, previously unexploited, target rich environment laying right in front of him that he will hit hard for the next six weeks.

Trump only has to make himself slightly more palatable to these groups and either keep Hillary where she is or bring her down a notch in the eyes of these groups. For Hillary, this is a big problem, one that will be difficult to overcome.

Through September, according to CBS, Secretary Clinton has spent $109.4 million on television advertising compared to Trump's $18.7 million. For two months, Clinton was advertising while Trump did not. Despite the six-to-one advantage in ad spending and eight-week head start, the two candidates find themselves in a dead heat nationally and in the battlegrounds. Ash she herself said, Hillary should be way ahead with her primary voting groups, but she isn't.

Now the Trump campaign has announced that it will spend $140 million on ads over the next six weeks until election day. $100 million of this money will target television with the remaining $40 million targeting a digital audience through Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and email.

 

Trump has an easily accessible, previously unexploited, target rich environment laying right in front of him . . .

Millennials and minorities are not embracing Hillary Clinton in the numbers she needs. Trump has a golden advertising opportunity to pick up support in these groups, or at least further diminish enthusiasm for Hillary.

College Republicans at George Fox

This represents a major shift in the daily political media environment for voters in battleground states. The operative question, will it make a difference?

First, let's look at TV ads. Some have argued that millennials do not watch much TV, so TV ads won't reach them. That is false. Nearly everyone watches some television, but it is true that millennials watch less than do their fellow older Americans. Younger millennials watch only sixteen hours of television per week. Older millennials watch about twenty-three hours of television per week. As a group, millennials watch fewer hours of television than everyone else. Gen X watches thirty-two hours and people fifty and older watch between forty-four and fifty-one hours of television per week.

So we see that millennials watch about half as much television (16-23 hours/week) as do older Americans (32-51 hours/week). When we consider also that millennials are much more likely to use DVRs and fast forward commercials, then the opportunities to reach them through television become scant. But, as it turns out, this assumption would be mistaken.

Millennials, in counterintuitive fashion, actually use DVRs far less than older Americans. Younger millennials fast forward through commercials, if they even have them, far less than older Americans. They spend 82% of their TV time watching live, more than older Americans. They see more live content because they prefer on-demand content and also watch more events that are generally watched live like sporting events or reality shows. In addition, fewer subscribe to cable/satellite and they are more diverse racially. Racial minorities in general own fewer DVRs.

So while millennials watch substantially less television overall, when they do watch it they are more likely to see commercials. For example, if a twenty-four year old female watches twenty hours of TV a week and watches 80% of it live, that gives the candidates sixteen hours of programming time during a week in which to insert it's commercials. For every hour of live television, one will see about fourteen minutes of commercials. So of that sixteen hours, nearly four hours of it will be commercials.

If you live in a battleground state you know that rarely does a commercial break pass without a political ad airing. If the two candidates buy up twenty percent of the advertising, splitting it evenly, that gives each candidate twenty-four minutes a week to appeal to these voters.

Hillary has been reaching these people uninterrupted for the last three months and millennials are not responding in the numbers she needs. Donald Trump is just starting to target these voters. This represents a major opportunity for him to counter-program the popular culture, academic and media elites, who along with Hillary's campaign have been savaging Trump daily for months.

We don't need to wonder, we know that Trump will reach these voters. If he can simply turn a few of these young and minority voters his direction, this tied race is likely to move his direction.

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump pulls to within 2 points of Hillary in Pennsylvania

In a four-way race, Trump has pulled to within two points of Hillary according to the Muhlenberg College poll (Morning Call), a well-respected poll. Trump receives 38 percent to Hillary's 40 percent.

In this poll, Trump has closed the gap by six points since the last measure. He has achieved this by increasing his support, not by reducing hers.

This is probably a reflection of Donald Trump spending money in Pennsylvania on advertising. He has not been spending money there long, while Hillary has been spending a large amount focused on attacks on Trump.

If this is the main reason, one can expect this tightening to hold because the Trump team announced Friday that they would be spending heavily the rest of the way.

 

 

Flag of Pennsylvania 

The poll shows Donald Trump gaining supporters and Hillary holding hers.

  Date Sample Clinton Trump
Muhlenberg College 9/19-9/23 486LV 40 38
Muhlenberg College 9/12-9/16 405LV 40 32

 

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

Ref's Ruling: McClatchy/Marist poll varies substantially from other national and bellwether state polls

The McClatchy/Marist national poll released today shows a six point lead for Hillary Clinton nationally. After comparing that poll to the other polls released in a similar time frame, it seems that the results should be weighted.

Nate Silver also noted that the few national polls released this week showing a big shift toward Clinton are out of step with other polling and probably do not indicate a real shift. See his Election Update: Reports Of A Clinton Rebound Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

As such, the poll will be included in the poll averages but weighted down so as to have only half the impact it normally would have.

If one doubts this approach, just ask if the election were held today would the national popular vote vary from the Florida and Ohio popular vote by a margin of 6.33 to 8.6 points respectively? Considering that those states usually closely track the national popular vote, as demonstrated to the right, it is highly unlikely and weighting makes sense here.

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foul Called on McClatchy/Marist Poll

Penalty: 0.5 weight applied in poll averages

Flag of the United States National Polls

6.8 point variation, FAILED: Other national polls +0.8 for Trump, McClatchy/Marist poll shows +6.0 for Clinton

Flag of Ohio Ohio

8.6 point variation, FAILED: OH+2.6 Trump, McClatchy/Marist poll shows +6.0 for Clinton

  Ohio Dem Natl Dem Ohio GOP Natl GOP
2012 50.7 51.0 47.7 47.2
2008 51.5 52.9 46.9 45.7
2004 48.7 48.3 50.8 50.7
2000 46.5 47.4 50.0 47.9
1996 47.4 49.2 41.0 40.7

 

Flag of FloridaFlorida

6.33 point varation, FAILED: FL+0.33 Trump, McClatchy/Marist poll shows +6.0 for Clinton

  Florida Dem Natl Dem Florida GOP Natl GOP
2012 50.0 51.0 49.1 47.2
2008 51.0 52.9 48.2 45.7
2004 47.1 48.3 52.1 50.7
2000 48.8 47.4 48.8 47.9
1996 48.0 49.2 42.3 40.7

 

Ref's Ruling: Recent NBC Polls Seem to Show Flawed Voter Turnout Models

The NBC/WSJ poll released Wednesday found Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by six points among likely voters. The NBC/Survey Monkey poll released Tuesday found a five-point lead for Hillary among likely voters. I would not care about this if these were registered voter polls, but because they are likely voter polls and a good filter was allegedly applied, these need more scrutiny.

NBC reported that Hillary had stopped the bleeding from her bad weekend and reversed the tide, now firmly back in control of the race. NBC also found the same level of voter intensity for Hillary Clinton as for Donald Trump. Huh, seems out of sync with everything else we are hearing, right?

All other national polls taken at the same time show a closer race, some with Trump leading, some with Clinton leading. The Economist shows a +2 for Clinton. Reuters shows a +2 for Trump. LA Times shows a +4 for Trump. UPI daily tracking shows a +1 for Clinton. Averaging those polls, you find a 0.8 point lead for Trump. So comparing to other national numbers shows us that the NBC polls probably are applying a flawed turnout model.

Another way to assess the NBC polls is to compare them to state polls from states that are bellwethers. Ohio's popular vote has nearly matched the national popular vote each year since 1996, as the chart demonstrates to the right. Florida also matched the popular vote very closely, although it tends to slightly favor Republicans.

Generally, the national polls should roughly match Ohio's poll results. This is true so long as a candidate is not from Ohio or is appealing to a particular voting tendency in Ohio. Trump may be doing just that by running a blue collar themed campaign. But Hillary is also mobilizing her supporters in the state and it is likely that Ohio will closely match the national result this year.

Florida favors the GOP a bit, by about a point and half above the national result. It is consistently off the national number by about a point and a half. One thing is true for both states, they have each picked the winner in the last five elections.

Both of these states are heavily polled. Also, the population is much smaller than the nation at large, so it is easier to get an accurate measure of voter opinion.

To determine if a poll is an outlier due to a flawed turnout model, a three-prong test will be applied. First, the poll must be within five points of the average of all other national polls. Second, it must be within five points of the current Ohio average. Last, it must be within five points of the current Florida poll averages. Both NBC polls failed each prong of the test.

Once a poll fails this test, a weight will be applied to that poll in the national averages. The poll will only count half as much as the other polls that do not indicate a flawed voter turnout model.

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

Update: Nate Silver doesn't seem to think the NBC polls mean much either

Do you think NBC's pollsters skew results for Democrats?
Yes
No
Poll Maker
 

Foul Called on NBC/WSJ and NBC/Survey Monkey Polls

Penalty: 0.5 weight applied in poll averages

Flag of the United States National Polls

FAILED: Other national polls +0.8 Trump, NBC polls +5 and +6 for Clinton

Flag of Ohio Ohio

FAILED: OH+2.6 Trump, NBC polls are 7.6 and 8.6 points off

  Ohio Dem Natl Dem Ohio GOP Natl GOP
2012 50.7 51.0 47.7 47.2
2008 51.5 52.9 46.9 45.7
2004 48.7 48.3 50.8 50.7
2000 46.5 47.4 50.0 47.9
1996 47.4 49.2 41.0 40.7

 

Flag of FloridaFlorida

FAILED: FL+0.33 Trump, NBC polls are 5.36 and 6.36 points off

  Florida Dem Natl Dem Florida GOP Natl GOP
2012 50.0 51.0 49.1 47.2
2008 51.0 52.9 48.2 45.7
2004 47.1 48.3 52.1 50.7
2000 48.8 47.4 48.8 47.9
1996 48.0 49.2 42.3 40.7

 

 

 

Trump jumping ahead in Colorado polls, up 3.5%

Not only is Trump polling much better than he was in Colorado up until September, but he is actually leading in the state in the two polls taken there in September. In the Emerson poll Trump is up four points, receiving 42 to Clinton's 38. In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, Trump leads by three, 43 to 40.

Considering that Clinton was so confidant in Colorado that she pulled her money out of the state in July, these September polls represent an earthquake in Colorado and nationally.

I added Colorado to the Battleground Index tonight, which only includes states that are actually close in the recent polling. He is ahead in Colorado by 3.5 points. Colorado adds another minimal scenario for Trump to win, which expands his options exponentially. Colorado makes a very significant electoral difference.

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

Photo attribution

 

 

 

 

 

Trump broke 50% in Fivethirtyeight.com Nevada prediction

Nate Silver famously has a secret algorithm to determine who is the likely winner in a race. His algorithm is showing that Trump has broken fifty percent for the first time in Nevada tonight. This is significant because Silver calculates more than polls, including the economy, the incumbent, etc. Using all of this, Silver is seeing Nevada is even.

The polling alone is showing Trump ahead because most of the other factors favor Hillary. I show Trump slightly up according to the polls. Nevada is a big deal. Once Trump has Nevada, he only needs to add New Hampshire to win the White House by my calculation. New Hampshire and Nevada are the states to watch to see if Trump will become the favorite.

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 
 

 

ADR, 16--09-19

No Glenn Beck, Trump does not need Pennsylvania to win

No matter where you look, if you're watching the MSM or a NeverTrumper is on the screen, you will hear the statement that Trump needs to win Pennsylvania. NeverTrumper Glenn Beck pushes this notion on his show regularly. The reason they do this is to put all the focus on Pennsylvania, where it is always an uphill fight for a Republican and the polls often look tough. Glenn knows that he has Trump supporters in his audience and his goal is to demoralize them. Unfortunately, he often distorts the truth or simply misstates it, to accomplish this goal. Trump absolutely does NOT need Pennsylvania to win.

The Glenn Beck crew plays a game where they pretend to be generous with electoral votes, assuming that Trump will win where he may not, and then they hit you with a demoralizing, gulp inducing statement, he still loses! There are a couple of problems with this. First, he is not being generous by assuming Trump will win North Carolina or Iowa. Trump is definitely up in Iowa and North Carolina is a tossup, but probably leans Trump. Remember, Obama didn't win the state when he had the biggest non-white voter turnout in history, which will almost certainly not be replicated this time.

The next problem becomes apparent when you actually do the math along with Glenn, Pat and Stu. They either can't do math or they are misrepresenting the truth. You decide.

Listen to this example where Glenn is being "generous," yet he refuses to assume that Trump will win Nevada, despite the fact that Trump is ahead there. He also questions whether Trump will win Texas. What? Glenn then asks what happens if Trump wins Colorado, which would make it an electoral tie, 269-269. If it's a tie, then Trump will win because of the GOP holding more state delegations in the House in this Congress. In a tie, this Congress would break the tie in favor of Trump, no doubt.

Perhaps they were assuming that Trump wouldn't win the second district in Maine, but Trump is leading there, so they shouldn't assume that.

Despite this truth, Glenn concludes his Friday show with an attempt to demoralize the Trump supporters in his audience. We expect this kind of behavior from the MSM, but Glenn Beck pretends to be above partisan rancor, stating that he is only interested in the truth. Maybe he shouldn't use distortions to push his narrative if he wants us to believe that.

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

Listen to Glenn put all the chips on Pennsylvania here

Glenn Beck (25657341265) 

In all battlegrounds, Trump leads by 0.50 points. In the map below, we see the scenario imagined by Glenn, Pat and Stu, and yes, Trump wins in this scenario.


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
 

 

Trump can win in numerous realistic scenarios without Pennsylvania. Here are four of them. See my battleground index

Scenario 1 (270EV): Trump loses VA, NH and NV, wins FL, NC, OH, WI, IA, AZ - Trump +1.58

Scenario 2 (270EV): Trump loses VA and WI, wins FL, OH, NC, IA, NV, AZ, NH - Trump +1.36

Scenario 3 (273EV): Trump loses WI, IA and NH, wins VA, FL, OH, NC, NV, AZ - Clinton +0.70

Scenario 4 (276EV): Trump loses VA and NH, wins FL, OH, NC, WI, IA, NV, AZ - Trump +1.50

 

ADR, 16--09-19

2nd Amendment comments won't hurt & everyone will know that in a week

Trump's poll surge is about to get tested. The MSM will test it like auto manufacturers test the integrity of their frames, with repeated head-on collisions while they studiously note where they might hit again to yield a total structure failure. The question is, however, after months of incredible outrage directed at Trump, how much damage can the MSM do to the Donald?

The MSM thought that Donald Trump had a bad Friday, not as bad as face-planting into the Scooby van, but bad. As Trump basher Glenn Thrush wrote in Politico, Trump could get cocky and make a mistake and the liberal MSM is waiting for it. The media thinks they witnessed such a mistake Friday night in front a raucous crowd, but they are wrong. Here's why.

The off-script imagining of what would happen if the Secret Service surrendered their weapons is in reality a pointed criticism of Clinton hypocrisy. The problem for Trump is that the liberal media, whose self-described mission it is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted, don't much like the type of afflicted that he represents. So instead of viewing the remarks as a populist critique of an elitist, MSM spun it as unhinged.

How one views these comments is determined by one's perspective on gun rights. The MSM doesn't value 2nd Amendment rights so they don't understand why people are fearful of Hillary, who many view as deserving of the kind of condemnation Trump delivered. She relies on gun protection but wants to take your guns away and will appoint a Justice who will do just that. That is, in actual fact, genuine elitist hypocrisy.

The comments Trump made, when viewed as criticism of banning guns, make sense. When viewed as just a threat of course they look unhinged. Most Americans value the 2nd Amendment, unlike the media, so they instinctively disagree with the MSM take.

The media ignores the legitimate nature of a condemnation of the gun ban Hillary wants to impose through the Court. Instead, the MSM played the controvery up as a whacky threat as screenshots of their landing pages demonstrate. But unlike the last foray into an alleged threat by Trump, the story did not continue to take the lead on the websites Saturday. I think I know why.

First, I'm not speaking about loony CNN and MSNBC. I didn't watch either network, so I don't know if they went wall-to-wall with it, but I suspect they did. But those networks don't move persuadable voters because they don't watch political news. The Internet might move them, but it's got to be sustained for several days and this story won't last.

Here's why the media will largely drop it. The first time Trump got in trouble for a 2nd Amendment comment, the media pushed the Trump unhinged narrative relentlessly. It moved some persuadables against him temporarily, but it also was representative of an approach to covering politics that has deeply wounded the press.

Most Americans view them as deeply biased and unfair to Trump. The Gallup poll released this week showing that only 14% of Republicans and 30% of Independents trust the media, and only 32% overall, shows us how bad the problem is. This poll shows that they have lost almost 70% of the country, which seems to include most of the persuadables. Most of that 70% just happen to be people who highly prize the 2nd Amendment. The media gets that so they are going to drop it.

In all battlegrounds, Trump leads by 0.50 points. Nationally, Clinton leads by 0.2 points with likely voters. Trump can win in several scenarios laid out below without Pennsylvania. See more here

 

Scenario 1 (270EV): Trump loses VA, NH and NV, wins FL, NC, OH, WI, IA, AZ - Trump +1.27

Scenario 2 (270EV): Trump loses VA and WI, wins FL, OH, NC, IA, NV, AZ, NH - Trump +1.09

Scenario 3 (273EV): Trump loses WI, IA and NH, wins VA, FL, OH, NC, NV, AZ - Clinton +0.60

Scenario 4 (276EV): Trump loses VA and NH, wins FL, OH, NC, WI, IA, NV, AZ - Trump +1.23

 

In addition to their loss of credibility, the press is facing the same problem as the Hillary campaign. They have attacked Trump so viciously, repetitively and in such personal terms that Trump is, at least in substantial part, inoculated from further character attacks. The vast majority of American voters have tuned them out, carefully constructing their own news networks on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and iHeartRadio, among many other social networks. To break through, the MSM must go nuclear, which further shrinks their audience, and they just aren't going to keep doing that for Hillary Clinton because they don't like her and the media realizes their problem.

Frank Bruni made the point that Democrats (and the media) have so often labeled Republicans racists and abhorrent that their claims now fall on deaf ears. Bruni cites Democratic operative Howard Wolfson who recalls using language against John McCain and Mitt Romney that was hyperbolic, inaccurate and undermined his credibility. NeverTrumper Jonah Goldberg also made this point when he wrote that decades of unfair attacks on the GOP leaves the MSM without credibility to effectively bring Trump down.

Howard Kurtz asks whether Clinton has used all of her best ammo. She went "nuclear" in ripping Trump's temperament for three months straight, in media, advertising and through every surrogate, and now she is tied with the trend line going against her. Kurtz cites NeverTrumper Rich Lowry who said that even he "is sick of seeing" Hillary's attacks on Trump "every other time" he turns on the TV.

So how do we know if the media attacks really have lost their teeth against Trump? Nate Silver is telling us to look at the polls in a week to see if Hillary is really in trouble. If she doesn't reverse the trend, Silver writes that not only is Trump having a few good weeks, but the Democrats should panic. If Trump does hold his gains, one could reasonably conclude that Trump is inoculated from their ruthless character attacks to a significant extent and that this race has really turned toward him. After a full day of polling after this story broke, today's LA Times tracking poll shows Trump gaining yet again. The 2nd Amendment story didn't hurt him yet and I suspect it won't in the coming week.

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

First Sabato, now Nate Silver hedging his shaky bet

The headline on fivethirtyeight.com today is How Trump Could Win the White House While Losing the Popular Vote. He first makes clear that he is not predicting a Trump win and that he stands by his algorithm for predicting elections. Okay, got it. As I see it, he then proceeds to make that case that if his algorithm is somewhere around 50/50 in predicting a winner, he's really saying that Trump is the more likely winner.

If I'm right, we are now in a place where a 50/50 prediction is really more like a 55/45 or even a 60/40 bet for Trump, right? Wouldn't that suggest that Mr. Silver's algorithm has a flaw that perhaps he should adjust? Let's look deeper.

Mr. Silver explains why this electoral win, despite a popular vote loss, is more likely than normal. The reason makes sense. Clinton faces a big electoral problem because she holds a very large lead in some of the big states in which she leads, popular vote that will not manifest in the electoral vote. She is also too far behind in other smaller states where anti-Trump demographics are located for those NeverTrumpers and the like to make a difference.

Specifically, three of the groups where Trump is doing the worst, college educated whites, Latinos and Mormons, are concentrated in states that are not battlegrounds. College-educated whites exceed 35% of the population in only two battlegrounds, New Hampshire and Colorado, neither of which are states Trump needs. Latinos exceed 15% only in three battlegrounds, Florida, Nevada and Arizona. Silver makes the point that Arizona has too big of a GOP built-in advantage to overcome. He also notes that Trump doesn't need Nevada, although he is leading there, and all Trump really needs is to improve on Romney's performance among whites by 3% in Florida to the overcome Latino bump in Florida.

Last, Silver looks at Mormons. Trump is not doing well among Mormons, probably because prominent Mormons like Romney, Glenn Beck and Jeff Flake routinely attack Trump. Despite this fact, however, Mormons are not located in areas where they are likely to make an electoral difference. Most Mormons are concentrated in Utah, California and Idaho. The outcome in those three states is certain, Trump will win Utah and Idaho and Clinton will will California. The Mormon populations in Nevada and Arizona are too small to matter much.

So in summary, we can conclude from Mr. Silver's analysis a couple of things. First, the national polls don't matter that much because they include larger than normal leads in populous states that will not translate to additional electoral votes. California, New York and Illinois are examples. Those national polls also include states where Trump may have a smaller than the normal GOP lead because of such anti-Trump groups, but leads that are nearly certain to hold on election day anyway. Texas, Arizona, Utah an Idaho are good examples.

In all battlegrounds, Trump leads by 0.29 points. Trump can win in several scenarios laid out below without Pennsylvania. See more here

 

 

Scenario 1 (270EV): Trump loses VA, NH and NV, wins FL, NC, OH, WI, IA, AZ - Trump +1.27

Scenario 2 (270EV): Trump loses VA and WI, wins FL, OH, NC, IA, NV, AZ, NH - Trump +1.09

Scenario 3 (273EV): Trump loses WI, IA and NH, wins VA, FL, OH, NC, NV, AZ - Clinton +0.60

Scenario 4 (276EV): Trump loses VA and NH, wins FL, OH, NC, WI, IA, NV, AZ - Trump +1.23

 

 

What to do about this dilemma? This question highlights the facts necessary to make a second conclusion. I would expect that Mr. Silver ought not show a 50/50 prediction if he thinks Trump's chances are better than 50/50, as he seems to suggest he would in this article. We can conclude from this that if he ends up throwing up his hands and going with the 50/50 prediction, or something close to it, it seems like a way for him to avoid predicting a Trump win while still getting credit for it in the end.

Nate Silver can point to this article and remind us that his 50/50 prediction was really a Trump-win prediction. For that matter, he could point to the article he wrote today to argue that his current 60/40 prediction was really more like a 50/50 bet, and he was just off a little on an assumption here or there. I'm starting to have may doubts. Remember, he already admitted that he screwed up on Donald Trump once. It looks like he's again unwilling to formally acknowledge the gains Trump is making.

This is what we are seeing with Sabato's Crystal Ball, a nod to the fact that Trump has better chances than the analysts are willing to formally state. It's hedging the bet or CYA, pick your description, but they both fit.

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

 

Sabato hedging his big bet on Clinton, admits Trump may be one state away

Nearly every political pundit dismisses Trump's chance of winning. in part it is bias, but most genuinely do believe that Trump will lose. For the most part, it's the conventional factors we look at to determine who will win that is driving their confidence. Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball incorporates such factors, only one of which is polling, to determine who will win. Betting sites do the same thing, relying on polls only as a portion of their calculation.

But on Thursday, Sabato and company admitted that their normal model is possibly not as reliable in this election. The normal assumptions they make, he points out, are not necessarily holding up. One political scientist notes that the assumption that parties will nominate mainstream candidates who will unify the party are not holding up. Also, the assumption that both candidates will run effective campaigns is not necessarily going to bare out.

Throughout the article, while still holding to the prediction of a Clinton win, Sabato gives numerous reasons why he might be wrong and Trump may win.

Trump could turn this into a change election. He would do this by acting like a normal candidate and taking attention from himself. Clinton controversies could take the focus from Trump as well. Much of this is already happening now, and it's easy to see it continuing, with Wikileaks promising their biggest releases still to come.

Sabato points out that while the polls in battleground states and nationally are close, Clinton still holds a slight lead. But, he also points out that the polls could be wrong if this electorate is not more diverse than the last one. Sabato's Crystal Ball is assuming that "that the 2016 electorate will be at least as diverse as 2012." But Trump driving white voter turnout and Clinton failing to inspire young diverse voters could easily change that, a possibility he acknowledges would throw off his projection.

Another factor that could throw off the Crystal Ball could be that Clinton's advertising and ground game advantages won't impact younger voters as much as others. I think this is a certainty, considering that younger voters are sophisticated about advertising avoidance on TV and other media, and they aren't likely to care if someone tells them they should vote. It seems more likely that they are tuning all of this out considering the high negatives of both candidates. Hillary is nothing like Obama on this front.

Sabato also notes that unlike recent elections, this electorate may be leaning more Republican than Democrat, although his current model does not assume that. He still assumes a significant Democratic advantage, but acknowledges that this could be wrong based on polling finding greater Republican enthusiasm and potential turnout.

 

In all battlegrounds, Trump leads by 0.29 points. Trump can win in several scenarios laid out below without Pennsylvania. See more here

 

 

Scenario 1 (270EV): Trump loses VA, NH and NV, wins FL, NC, OH, WI, IA, AZ - Trump +1.27

Scenario 2 (270EV): Trump loses VA and WI, wins FL, OH, NC, IA, NV, AZ, NH - Trump +1.09

Scenario 3 (273EV): Trump loses WI, IA and NH, wins VA, FL, OH, NC, NV, AZ - Clinton +0.60

Scenario 4 (276EV): Trump loses VA and NH, wins FL, OH, NC, WI, IA, NV, AZ - Trump +1.23

 

 

Last, he acknowledges that he is taking a risk by not using his toss-up rating, a measure that would cut into his Hillary projection by rating some very close states as toss ups. He writes, "we are trying to hold off on that this year, in what could be a mistaken stroke of courage."

My analysis sees the "outer ring" of Democratic defenses as already breached. This includes Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina and the two congressional district electoral votes in Maine and Nebraska. That leaves Trump only needing New Hampshire, not Pennsylvania, to win the election. It seems Sabato is acknowledging that this could easily happen as is apparent by the multitude of caveats he offered in his latest projection.

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

 

 

 

 

WLOS and other outlets report allegation of punch as fact, no evidence

WLOS, an ABC affiliate in Asheville, NC is reporting that a Trump supporter punched an elderly woman. There were no eyewitnesses and the alleged attacker was not arrested, but a warrant has been issued. From the video of the alleged victim within the news story, no visible signs of a punch are apparent.

Despite no eyewitnesses or evidence beyond the alleged victim's story, the affiliate is reporting this as a fact. The headline also seems to advocate that this is a deplorable act, seemingly taking the words of Hillary Clinton and applying them to a Trump supporter with no firm evidence. The story has been picked up by other news outlets nationally. For example, WKRC in Cincinnati is now carrying the story on it's website.

Journalistic integrity demands that this be reported as an allegation and not a statement of fact. In this highly charged election season, this sort of incomplete reporting can spark a national controversy based strictly on the claim of one person with no supporting evidence.

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

A screenshot of the original story can be seen here.

 

 

 

 

 

Biggest swing of the year in national poll following "deplorable" comment and fall

We have seen a major shift in the one national poll that contains data from after Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment and her physical collapse at the 9/11 memorial. In one national poll, Donald Trump is now matching his number from his convention bounce. He now leads Hillary by nearly five points, receiving 46.7% to her 42.0% in the LA Times Daily tracking poll.

On the day of Hillary's physical collapse, Hillary actually led Trump by 1.4 points. In just three days, we have seen a 6.1 point swing in the polls. This marks the biggest swing in the LA Times daily tracking poll this election season. The only swings that are comparable came during both conventions. Trump saw a seven-point swing during his convention over six days, and Clinton received a five-point bounce during the DNC over three days. This swing is bigger because it occured in only three days.

We see bounces in polls that come and go. What makes this swing different is its size and the fact that it includes just over a third of the total voter sample. The LA Times tracking poll surveys 400 people per day, so only 1200 people of the total 3000 voter sample has been surveyed after the "deplorable" comments and the fall. To create a six-point swing, Trump must be receiving a much larger share of the daily voters than he has been receiving in the past.

Of course this is only one poll. We will know much more in two weeks when we have the first debate. This poll is our first indication that Trump may actually take a national lead into the debates.

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

Dead Heat in the Battlegrounds

0.29 point Margin in Ref's Battlegrounds.

There are now four realisitic scenarios where Trump can win without Pennsylvania.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poll finds VA back to pre-convention status, but before "deplorable" weekend

Despite two recent polls showing a tied race, a PPP poll in Virginia released today contends that the VA race has returned to stasis. The poll showed a six-point edge for Hillary, right around the five-point average lead she has held in recent months. This comes after Clinton had surged will into the lead in Virginia since her convention, by somewhere between seven and thirteen points.

If Virginia is back to where it started in a poll in the field through 9/11 when the medical incident occurred, shouldn't we expect it to move toward Trump now, at least temporarily? The race has probably reset for some with Clinton attacking voters and causing real doubt that she's physically up to the job. Many Virginia voters are in the military and I suspect the deplorable comment went over badly with those folks. After-all, they are serving the country. Wouldn't a civilian calling their mates deplorable while they are putting their lives on the line cause some leaning Hillary to reconsider? That deplorable comment will impact Virginia more so than most states.

I suspect PPP is right that Virginia is for Clinton by around five points absent new information, but this weekend qualifies as ground-shaking. I'm just saying we should see what Virginia does over the coming two weeks leading up to debate. If it pulls back to even, Trump could take the lead in the debates.

You doubt that? Well for Trump it's all about being an acceptable alternative. If he continues to play the roll of presidential and finally starts spending real ad dollars in Virginia, he could pass that low bar. He doesn't have to be that fast, just faster than Hillary. We learned this weekend that she is pretty slow politically. And remember, Virginia is the headquarters of the establishment. If you see the establishment start to move to Trump as polls tighten, as some already have, then watch Virginia close.

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

Dead Heat in the Battlegrounds

0.29 point Margin in Ref's Battlegrounds.

There are now four realisitic scenarios where Trump can win without Pennsylvania.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan polls are closing

A Reuters/Ipsos poll shows the race is close, with Hillary up by two points. The poll was taken from August 26th to September 8th, including 613 likely voters. This close margin is consistent with their last two polls that actually showed Trump ahead. Google also found Trump ahead. Two other polls found Clinton only up five points, Emerson and Fox 2 Detroit.

Michigan is always a tough state for Republicans. That Trump is close and even ahead in several polls taken in the last month, shows the party has a real chance this time. Trump would likely need a national lead of around three to four points to take the state. Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

 

Dead Heat in the Battlegrounds

0.29 point Margin in Ref's Battlegrounds.

There are now four realisitic scenarios where Trump can win without Pennsylvania.

Trump pulls ahead in Florida poll average

Trump is now tied or leading in five of the nine closest battlegrounds. He is also tied or leading in five of the six battlegrounds he would need for election. So he could be as close as one state away.

Trump took the lead in the poll averages in Florida today, a significant shift. No doubt the Hillary camp intended to take a lead into the debates, but that is now out the window.

All the talking heads assumed Trump would need a major breakthrough in the debates, but now it looks like it may be enough just to avoid mistakes. The trend in all of the state polling is favoring Trump. Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

 

 

 

Trump now leading Hillary in average of Florida polls - +0.5 Points

0.17 point Margin in Ref's Battlegrounds.

There are now four realisitic scenarios where Trump can win without Pennsylvania.

 

Colorado is now a 2 point race

A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds Trump leading Hillary by 2 points in Colorado. Trump tops Clinton, receiving 43% to Clinton's 41% support in the poll. The poll included 417 likely voters and was taken from August 26th to September 8th. Donald Trump started closing the gaps in the polls on September 1st, so this poll includes some data prior to that time.

The other most recent poll shows Hillary up by 5 points. That poll was taken prior to the polls beginning to tighten nationwide. Colorado may now be a battleground again. Averaging those polls gives Hillary a 1.5 point lead. Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

 

 

 

Dead Heat in the Battlegrounds

0.17 point Margin in Ref's Battlegrounds.

There are now four realisitic scenarios where Trump can win without Pennsylvania.

 

More CBS/YouGov "likely" voter polls that are really registered voter polls

These recent YouGov state polls are demonstrating a consistent flaw, reporting a registered voter poll as a likely voter poll. Registered voter polls, according to Nate Silver, almost always favor Democrats. This probably represents the most likely explanation for the CBS pollster using this tactic.

According to the Ohio poll released today, 994 of the 1000 registered voters they surveyed were deemed likely to vote. Included in the pool of likely voters were registered voters who deemed themselves a "maybe" as to whether they will vote or not, and also those who said they will "probably" vote. These voters combined to represent seven percent of the likely voter pool. They were all deemed likely voters. Most pollsters throw those voters out of the likely voter pool.

Opening up the likely voter pool to include essentially every registered voter they talked to resulted in a +7 Democratic voter turnout assumption in a state that is even, with a one-point Republican party ID edge as recently as 2014. Not to mention, the intensity is on Trump's side, so nothing justifies assuming such a high Democratic turnout.

It was no better in the Florida poll, where they assumed only seven of the 1200 registered voters they interviewed would stay home, despite the fact that around 72 of those registered voters said they were a "maybe" or a "probably," as opposed to definitely. Again, this is not what most pollsters assume.

This poll assumed Democrats would have a +2 turnout advantage on election day, a much more reasonable assumption than Ohio. That assumption is in line with recent elections. The poll also had a much more reasonable outcome, but among registered voters, not likely voters.

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

The Ref's Battleground Index

Clinton +0.20 Points in All Ref Battlegrounds

There are now four realisitic scenarios where Trump can win without Pennsylvania.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reuters/Ipsos poll finds Trump up 2 points in Wisconsin

A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds Trump leading Hillary by 2 points in Wisconsin. Trump tops Clinton, receiving 40% to Clinton's 38% support in the poll. The poll included 523 likely voters and was taken from August 26th to September 8th. The tightening in polls began right around September 1st around the country, so this poll includes just under half of its sample from before that time, suggesting more movement favoring Trump is possible.

The fivethirtyeight.com website rates Ipsos polls with an A- rating, which is high grade for the website. The poll barely skews Democratic, according to fivethirtyeight.com, by 0.1%. This indicates that it has a very small bias. Many polls have a worse bias, such as CBS's pollster YouGov that has a bias of plus 1.6% for Democrats.

This changes Wisconsin from +2.34 points for Clinton to +2.0 for her in the Ref's Battleground Index.

Follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

The Ref's Battleground Index

Clinton +0.84 Points in All Ref Battlegrounds

There are now four realisitic scenarios where Trump can win without Pennsylvania.

 

 

 

Google poll finds Trump up in Pennsylvania

A Google poll finds Trump leading Hillary in in Pennsylvania by two points. Clinton receives 33%, Trump 35% and Gary Johnson 11%. The poll included 808 likely voters, a fairly good sized likely voter poll.

The fivethirtyeight.com website rates Google Consumer Survey polls with a B rating, which is a middling grade, but decent. The poll slightly skews Republican, according to fivethirtyeight.com, by 0.6%. This indicates that it is a small bias. Many polls have a worse bias, such as CBS's pollster YouGov that has a bias of plus 1.6% for Democrats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Ref's Battleground Index

Clinton +0.24 Points in All Ref Battlegrounds

There are now four realisitic scenarios where Trump can win without Pennsylvania.

Please follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

UPDATE: The Washington Post mega-poll is not predictive in a state-by-state election

UPDATE: Nate Silver analyzed these types of polls yesterday, where a pollster will call people in all fifty states and then release results from each state based on demographic data. Unsurprisingly, his analysis agreed with mine, that a simple demographic filter does nothing to effectively determine who will actually vote in each of the fifty states.

He pointed out that the method has not been empirically tested and that the demographic weighting is too slight and not reflective of actual turnout. Further, he noted that identifying where voters live based on IP address is a flawed process, certain to place some respondents in the wrong state. The process produces weird results in states, results like we note below in Texas and Mississippi. He concludes that these state-by-state subsamples from a fifty-state poll are not the same as actual polls directed specifically at one state at a time.

The Washington Post commissioned a poll of all registered voters and decided to draw conclusions about who holds an electoral advantage from the results. The problem for the Washington Post, and they undoubtedly know this, is that polls of all registered voters always heavily favor Democrats and skew the results in such a way that they are ineffective in determining a likely winner. To compound this problem, when applying this registered voter approach to fifty states and then applying a simple demographic model as a filter, as opposed to a well-tested historically based voter turnout model, you really get bad results.

The Survey Monkey poll weighted the results to match "demographic characteristics of registered voters in each state," rather than typical voter turnout models. Elections are not decided by a demographically representative pool of registered voters. If that were the case, the Democrats would win every national election because there are more registered Democrats. The problem for Democrats is that they have a big problem getting their voters to actually turn out and vote, and that is true every time.

Republicans do better in off-year elections because their voters turn out, even when the national focus is not on politics. Democrats do better in presidential years because so much attention is paid to politics. But even in a presidential year, only 60% of the potential electorate will turn out and vote.

The Washington Post's pollster is not filtering for who is likely to vote. What this method of polling achieves is a built-in bump for any Democrat, usually a big one. Nate Silver demonstrates the statistical bias towards Democrats in both presidential and non-presidential election years.

One need not delve into the statistics to see the invalidity of this type of poll for determining who will win fifty state elections. One need only look at the results to find that the poll is not predictive.

More Analysis from the Ref

**Latest battleground numbers show the race tied on Labor day

Mistake? CBS Pollster Confuses its Registered Voter Poll with a Likely Voter Poll, Boosts Clinton Number

With Virginia now Tied, Trump is Rapidly Closing Battleground Gap

Trump is Closer Than You Think

Donald Trump is Not Trailing by Much in this Election, and Actually May be Ahead

The Washington Post poll found that Trump is tied with Hillary in Mississippi and Texas. There is no chance that Hillary will win either state. There simply are not enough NeverTrumpers in the GOP to accomplish this task. But in the imaginary world the Washington Post created, that could happen.

This poll does accomplish one thing, however, something WaPo would not have wanted to demonstrate. Because Trump is running even or ahead in a number of normally Democratic states even when the sample is skewed to favor Democrats, it demonstrates that Trump has real strength in those states.

The Ref's Battleground Index

Clinton +0.24 Points in All Ref Battlegrounds

There are now four realisitic scenarios where Trump can win without Pennsylvania.

Registered voter polls, as opposed to likely voter polls, always favor Democrats

 

Please follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Four realistic scenarios where Trump wins without Pennsylvania

*If Trump wins Pennsylvania, he will likely win Ohio and Florida and win the election. But Trump does not need Pennsylvania to win. This is a constant refrain of pro-Hillary pundits and NeverTrumpers. Trump has realistic chances without Pennsylvania, and they are mapped out here, including the current poll average margin between the candidates using the most recent and reliable polling.

 

 

 

 

 

Scenario 1 (270EV): Trump loses VA, NH and NV, wins FL, NC, OH, WI, IA, AZ - Trump +0.90

Scenario 2 (270EV): Trump loses VA and WI, wins FL, OH, NC, IA, NV, AZ, NH - Trump +0.23

Scenario 3 (273EV): Trump loses WI, IA and NH, wins VA, FL, OH, NC, NV, AZ - Trump +0.07

Scenario 4 (276EV): Trump loses VA and NH, wins FL, OH, NC, WI, IA, NV, AZ - Trump +0.51.

Please follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

Poll Average: Trump within 1.2 points nationally among likely voters

I am keeping a running average of national polls here. I am keeping an average of registered and likely voters. I will also not include old polls in the averages after the race has shifted, which can throw off the averages. Trump is currently witihin 1.2 points among likely voters.

Check back later today for an update on the Ref's battleground index.

Please follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

More Analysis from the Ref

**Latest battleground numbers show the race tied on Labor day

Mistake? CBS Pollster Confuses its Registered Voter Poll with a Likely Voter Poll, Boosts Clinton Number

With Virginia now Tied, Trump is Rapidly Closing Battleground Gap

Trump is Closer Than You Think

Donald Trump is Not Trailing by Much in this Election, and Actually May be Ahead

 

The Washington Post mega-poll is not predictive in an election context

The Washington Post commissioned a poll of all registered voters and decided to draw conclusions about who holds an electoral advantage from the results. The problem for the Washington Post, and they undoubtedly know this, is that polls of all registered voters always heavily favor Democrats and skew the results in such a way that they are ineffective in determining a likely winner. It may be useful in determining public opinion of registered voters, but who cares about that when we are talking about who will actually win? We want likely voters' opinions.

The Survey Monkey poll weighted the results to match "demographic characteristics of registered voters in each state," rather than typical voter turnout models. Elections are not decided by a demographically representative pool of registered voters. If that were the case, the Democrats would win every national election because there are more registered Democrats. The problem for Democrats is that they have a big problem getting their voters to actually turn out and vote, and that is true every time.

Republicans do better in off-year elections because their voters turn out, even when the national focus is not on politics. Democrats do better in presidential years because so much attention is paid to politics. But even in a presidential year, only 60% of the potential electorate will turn out and vote.

The Washington Post's pollster is not filtering for who is likely to vote. What this method of polling achieves is a built-in bump for any Democrat, usually a big one. Nate Silver demonstrates the statistical bias towards Democrats in both presidential and non-presidential election years.

One need not delve into the statistics to see the invalidity of this type of poll for determining who will win fifty state elections. One need only look at the results to find that the poll is not predictive.

The Washington Post poll found that Trump is tied with Hillary in Mississippi and Texas. There is no chance that Hillary will win either state. There simply are not enough NeverTrumpers in the GOP to accomplish this task. But in the imaginary world the Washington Post created, that could happen.

 

This poll does accomplish one thing, however, something WaPo would not have wanted to demonstrate. Because Trump is running even or ahead in a number of normally Democratic states even when the sample is skewed to favor Democrats, it demonstrates that Trump has real strength in those states.

The Ref's Battleground Index

Clinton +2.1 Points in All Ref Battlegrounds (Trump +0.4 from last result)

Clinton +1.9 Points in Traditional GOP States (Trump +0.2 from last result)

Registered voter polls, as opposed to likely voter polls, always favor Democrats

 

Please follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latest battleground numbers show the race tied on Labor day

The Ref's battleground index includes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona and New Hampshire. Those states are included because the polls show them to be battlegrounds. Michigan and Pennsylvania are showing signs of closing, but haven't quite gotten there yet. Remember, contrary to conventional wisdom, Trump can win rather easily without Pennsylvania.

With each new poll in the last few days we have seen a major tightening, now to the point where the candidates are undoubtedly statistically tied. Every poll in the battleground states is within the margin of error. One notable exception are the Pennsylvania and North Carolina CBS/YouGov polls, which absurdly assume a 99% turnout, an assumption that bumps Hillary's result by substantial margins. The North Carolina poll was within the margin of error even with the laughable likely voter filter applied.

Today we saw the release of a string of battleground polls that have to frighten the Hillary camp and the media campaign to elect Hillary Clinton. Reuters/Ipsos released the following poll results:

Iowa - Trump 44% Clinton 41%

Maine - Trump 42% Clinton 42%

Michigan - Trump 42% Clinton 42%

New Hampshire - Trump 45% Clinton 44%

Ohio - Trump 46% Clinton 43%

Utah - Trump 35% Clinton 34%

Wisconsin - Trump 39% Clinton 39%

Using the RealClearPolitics averages as guides, Trump leads in Iowa by 0.8 points and Arizona by 2.5 points. Trump trails in Ohio (-3.3), Florida (-2.7), North Carolina (-1.2), Nevada (2.3), Wisconsin (4.0) and Virginia (1.5). A poll in Wisconsin from June was excluded because the data is too old. Two polls in Virginia were excluded because they contain data over three weeks old.

When we apply the latest battleground numbers, we find Trump ahead in Iowa by 1.2 points, trailing in Ohio by 1.75 points and Wisconsin by 2.66 points. When factoring these new numbers, the Ref's battleground index for all battlegrounds shifted from Clinton +2.5 points to Clinton +2.0. The Ref's battleground index in traditionally Republican states changed from Clinton +2.1 to Clinton +1.9.

As an aside, the battleground index does not include states where Trump is leading. The point is to measure how far the person trailing is behind, because that is the measure that actually makes an electoral difference.

The Wall Street Journal ripped Trump in mid-August for running an incompetent campaign. It warned the GOP that "if they can’t get Mr. Trump to change his act by Labor Day, the GOP will have no choice but to write off the nominee as hopeless and focus on salvaging the Senate and House and other down-ballot races." It seems Trump has passed their test. One can imagine that the NeverTrumpers at the WSJ did not expect Trump to actually change his act and move the polls, but he's done just that.

More Analysis from the Ref

Mistake? CBS Pollster Confuses its Registered Voter Poll with a Likely Voter Poll, Boosts Clinton Number

With Virginia now Tied, Trump is Rapidly Closing Battleground Gap

Trump is Closer Than You Think

Donald Trump is Not Trailing by Much in this Election, and Actually May be Ahead

 

The Ref's Battleground Index

Clinton +2.1 Points in All Ref Battlegrounds (Trump +0.4 from last result)

Clinton +1.9 Points in Traditional GOP States (Trump +0.2 from last result)

What now? NeverTrumpers expected Hillary to hold a commanding lead on Labor Day

Considering that NeverTrumpers want nothing more than to focus only on the Senate and the House and write Trump off, one can imagine that the Wall Street Journal was laying the predicate for doing just that. The NeverTrump theory goes that if Clinton holds a commanding lead, her base will become complacent and opposition to her on the right will mobilize just enough to save Congress. If Trump is close in the polls, as he is, NeverTrumpers argue that fear of a Trump presidency will mobilize Americans to vote in a Democratic congress to offset Trump. If Trump pulls way ahead in the polls, this will cause Americans to almost certainly elect a Democrat House and Senate to oppose him.

First, the NeverTrump theory laid out above concludes that the worst-case scenario is a close race because Republicans are most likely to lose the House in that scenario, in addition to the White House. Nate Silver concludes the contrary, however, that the only way Democrats could win the House and the Senate is a massive Trump loss. Built-in geographic advantages and a decade or more of Republican redistricting virtually guarantee a Republican hold unless Trump loses huge, what NeverTrumpers want. It appears that Silver has the far superior argument based on the facts.

So here we are at Labor Day and it's tied. NeverTrumpers can continue down the irrational path outlined above or the opposite path where support for Trump is much more likely to save the Senate. The House is safe no matter what. We'll see what they conclude this week as this new polls seep into the political psyche.

Please follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

CBS pollster using deceptive tactic to pad Clinton numbers

CBS released two battleground state polls today, one from Pennsylvania and one from North Carolina. Both polls showed a Clinton lead, +8 in Pennsylvania and +4 in North Carolina. Looks good for Hillary, right? At first blush, yes. But these are just registered voter polls, which always favor Democrats and do not predict the result on election day.

What is surprising about these polls is not their results because they are registered voter polls and registered voter polls always favor Democrats. Even Nate Silver admits this. The most surprising thing about these polls is that they claimed they were likely voter polls, presumably to cause readers to attach the higher level of credibility that comes with the likely voter label.

To my great surprise, in both polls 1100 registered voters were interviewed. And in both polls, the CBS pollster assumed a 99% of registerd voters were likely voters. Apparently almost no registered voters will stay home on election day, astounding accomplishment. Voter turnout was 54.2% in 2000, 60.4% in 2004, 62.3% in 2008 and 57.5% in 2012. Now we can expect a major jump, probably over 90% turnout, if this assumption is correct.

Please follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

 

This is deceptive reporting on a legitimate registered voter poll. Readers associate greater reliability on a likely voter poll, but this was not a likely voter poll. CBS should relabel this poll a registered voter poll to maintain credibility on this.

Check out the screen grabs below from CBS showing that 99% of the registered voters they polled were deemed likely to vote

 

 

With Virginia now tied, Trump is rapidly closing battleground gap

The Ref's battleground index includes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona and New Hampshire. Those states were included because Trump trailed by four points or less in all of those states, so they are real battlegrounds. Now another state has dropped into that margin, Virginia.

The shift in Virgina seems rather stunning. Only a few days ago, most pundits, including conservative ones, had written the state off. With the last two polls showing a virtual tie, that analysis is out the window. Pennsylvania is also closing, but still sits at a 6.0 point margin for Hillary, so for now, it will remain out of the index.

In Virginia, three of the polls in the RCP average are simply too old, containing no data from the last three weeks. Any data that old in a quickly developing race like this one is simply irrelevant. Taking only data from within the last three weeks, the polling average shows Clinton up only by 1.5 points. An Emerson poll has Clinton up 1 and a Hampton University poll has her up by 2. Emerson receives a B rating from 538, but it does show a slight Republican bias over time. Hampton University also receives a B, but has no bias over time and a 100% race calling percentage. These are solid polls and worth considering.

The margins in the other battlegrounds follow. Trump leads in Iowa by 0.8 points and Arizona by 2.5 points. Trump trails in Ohio (-3.8), Florida (-2.7), North Carolina (-0.5), Nevada (2.3), Wisconsin (4.0) and Virginia (1.5). A poll in Wisconsin from June was excluded because the data is too old. Averaging the states where Trump is behind shows us that Trump is trailing by 2.5 points.

While the overall index is remaining same, +2.5 points for Clinton, Trump has gained flexibility. Trump no longer needs to win states that often go to Democrats. He can now afford to lose Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, where he is less likely to win by historical standards. He will need to win the states Republicans have won recently, specifically Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada and Arizona, where he trails only by 2.1 points. He can also afford to lose Nevada where he's currently trailing if he wins Iowa, where he's currently leading.

The Ref's Battleground Index

Clinton +2.5 Points in All Ref Battlegrounds

Clinton +2.1 Points in Traditional GOP States

Trump can now focus on bringing Republicans home, an easier task

This shift is significant because Trump can pull into the lead just by bringing Republicans into his tent. He has not been achieving the ninety percent level of Republican support that a GOP candidate typically receives. He has been closer to seventy-five percent. If he can just get a little closer to ninety percent support, he should claim these states that often go GOP. Some of the GOP will naturally come home as we approach election day.

Glenn Beck and the NeverTrumpers are starting to lose their grip. One can easily imagine that we are approaching a tipping point. Once it becomes clear that Trump really can win fairly easily, the argument that Trump will definitely lose so we must abandon him, the primary argument of NeverTrumpers, becomes hollow and ineffectual.

At that point the veneer of concern for the greater good of the GOP disappears and the real motivations of the NeverTrumpers will become manifest. Most of the Trump resistance will dissolve because of a refusal to openly embrace their actual political motivations. Among others, these motivations include blind adherence to globalization, naked political ambition, and sadly, simple bruised egos.

Please follow my new account on Twitter for daily updates on the election!

 

Trump is closer than you think

 

The conventional wisdom is that Pennsylvania is Trump's surest way to 270. Trump is trailing in the Pennsylvania RCP average by 7.3 points, so quite a few pundits are confidently writing Trump off as a sure loser. The problem with this confidence, however, is that Pennsylvania is not Trump's surest bet. In fact, the Midwest plus Florida and possibly New Hampshire, provides a clearer and currently quite realistic path to 269, the actual number that he needs.

Trump is only trailing by an average of 3.1 points in these states, with the largest lead being five points, but the rest are three points or less. So we're not talking unrealistic scenarios. Here it is.

Trump loses Pennsylvania but wins Florida and Ohio; most pundits think it's over. But that's wrong. Actually, it's not even close to over in that situation. Here are some very realistic scenarios for a Trump win without winning Pennsylvania.

First, Trump must win Ohio (-3.8), Florida (-2.7) and North Carolina (-0.5), which he's very close in those states. Next, he must win Nevada and Arizona. He's currently ahead in Arizona in the RCP by 2.5 points, but he's trailing in Nevada by 2.3 points. Last, he must win in Iowa in and Wisconsin. He is only behind by 1.5 points in Iowa, but by 4 points in Wisconsin. I threw out the poll that RCP is including in Wisconsin from June because that's a really old poll. So he's only down four according to an average of recent Marquette and Monmouth polls there.

Combining those state averages where he trails (OH, FL, NC, NV, IA, WI), Trump is only trailing by 2.5 points. He is trailing nationally by 3.9 points according to the four-way race polls, 1.5 points higher than this state average. This gap is significant because it demonstrates that Hillary's massive leads in California and the big cities could be giving her a national lead that may not produce an electoral victory.

 

 

The Ref's Index - Clinton +2.5 Points

Trump does not need Pennsylvania

So what if Trump loses one of these states? Still not a problem, depending on which state he loses and if he wins all five electoral votes out of Nebraska, which I assume he will. Trump can lose Iowa, Nevada or Wisconsin, but only one of those, and still win the presidency with 269 electoral votes. This is true because the Republicans are almost certain to retain the House, and the House breaks an electoral tie. Unless Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg have serious dirt on Speaker Ryan, Trump would win in that scenario.

By winning all the states in this group,Trump ends up at 275 electoral votes. So he can lose Iowa's six electoral votes and win with 269. He can lose Nevada's six electoral votes and still win with 269. If he loses Wisconsin, he would need to win in New Hampshire, which is quite realistic, and still win with 269 electoral votes. New Hampshire's RCP average is pretty sketchy right now. It contains two polls that came during Clinton's bounce, a bounce we know is gone now based on the national numbers, but also has a poll with the two nearly tied just before the conventions. I suspect the race is probably close to tied again, but we need to new polling in that state to know.

So if Trump can close the gap in the national four-way race down to within one point behind Hillary, this analysis suggests he's got a chance because this index of battleground states is a point and a half closer than that national average. Pennsylvania just doesn't matter nearly as much as we think it does. There was an Emerson poll showing him only down three points in Pennsylvania, however, so don't count him out there just yet. But if he wins Pennsylvania, it would just be the icing on the cake. Follow my new Twitter account for daily tracking of the states that really matter!

 

Monmouth's national poll is suspiciously skewing toward Hillary

Register to vote African American 1960s sign

MU taglinelogo PMS287

The Monmouth poll is regarded as a solid poll. Nate Silver's website rates it an A+ poll, but it's not apparent just why this poll receives the high grade. The poll fares worse than other pollsters in the categories he measures, yet the poll that favors Democrats more than Republicans, as noted by Silver, receives the A+ anyway.

The poll has an average margin of error of 5.5%. This is a large margin of error considering it means that a margin of eleven points must occur before a lead is outside the margin of error. That margin of error results from taking small samples. Small samples also allow for cherry picking the results a pollster might want. While that is not a certainty the smaller sample allows for it.

While the poll has some issues, it is a good poll overall, but it probably doesn't deserve an A+ rating.

 

 

Registered Voter Polls Favor Democrats Because Many Register but do not Vote

Now to the results of the latest poll. The last poll found that Hillary Clinton was ahead of Trump by thirteen points, a very large lead. Certainly that result was outside of credibility, but we can use it to judge the current poll.

The poll released this week showed a seven-point lead for Hillary, so we see that he has cut Hillary's lead in half. That is consistent with other polling. The problem, however, is that Monmouth's result for registered voters mirrored exactly the results it found for likely voters after it applied it's likely voter screen. This really should not happen much if at all.

The reason this is a red flag is that registered voter polls almost always favor Democrats. When a screen for likely voters is applied, it almost always gives the Republican a bump and the Democrat a drop. This is true because more registered Democrats stay home than do registered Republicans. Democrats are very good at registering voters, but registering them is only part of the battle.

Simply put, Democrats are less likely to actually turn out and vote. So many of the people Democrats are able to register in voter registration drives, like students for example, do not end up voting. Even though they do not vote, their answers are included in a registered voter poll, and that results in a bump for the Democrat that will not materialize on election day. Nate Silver demonstrates this exact bias using stats on his website. There's really no doubt that registered voter polls favor Democrats.

So because registered voter polls favor Democrats, one should wonder when the likely voter screen results in a +7 margin for Clinton, the same as the registered voter poll margin of +7 for Clinton. What Monmouth is telling us is that this election is different from all the others where Democrats were less likely to turn out. There's no reason to believe that is true this time around, especially considering that Republicans have registered more new people and had record turnout in its primaries.

 

Donald Trump is not trailing by much in this election, and actually may be ahead

Reuters/Ipsos released a poll last week that was widely reported as indicative of a commanding Clinton lead. It showed Hillary up by twelve points. Wow, the race is over, right? Wrong, because this week, after only a mere seven days, Trump has cut that lead by almost sixty percent, now down to a five-point margin. And when they include all the candidates running, including Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, you know, like the actual ballot will, the lead is only three points.

What changed in that time to make such a dramatic difference? Well certainly a good deal happened. Trump has softened his stance on deportation, Clinton went extreme with racial slurs toward Trump, and the AP released its analysis showing that half of all Clinton's official meetings were with donors to the Clinton Foundation. Hmmm, stinks pretty bad.

So are these developments enough to move seven percent of the population? That's a huge swing and this electorate is polarized and hardened, so, of course not. The truth is that Hillary was never up by twelve points. Nor is she up by ten points now and she has certainly never led by fifteen points. All of these leads were reported breathlessly by the media campaign to elect Hillary Clinton. As an aside, the Quinnipiac poll showing a ten-point lead did not release the party identifications of its respondents, a sure sign that it oversampled Democrats.

The Four-Way Race Polls are the Only Polls that Matter

These very large Clinton leads are fictions of the pollsters, created by pitting Clinton and Trump head-to-head, not offering the Libertarian and Green Party candidates as options and doing everything they can to put each likely voter into a category. In an imaginary pollster world where only two choices exist and every likely voter actually turns out to vote for only one of two candidates, Hillary would win big. This margin is the result of the media and pop culture war on Trump. When middle of the roaders don't favor either candidate, they will lean toward the one that leads to less scorn if forced to do so.

But that's not reality. In America, nobody is forced to vote. A greater than normal number will almost certainly stay home in 2016. There will also be other options on the ballot. If you have a Facebook account, you likely have witnessed the passion of Libertarians and Greens convinced they can make a difference this time around. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will receive a big chunk of the vote collectively, as polling currently reflects. So why do pollsters not include them in every question?

Well there is some value in measuring the head-to-head in a normal election, where supporters of third parties usually break for one of the two big parties toward the end, but that's not likely to happen in 2016. As Nate Silver points out, dislike for the major party candidates is record breaking. Many middle of the roaders just don't like either candidate, and likability is a major factor in a presidential vote, and for the first time in a long time, both candidates are intensely disliked by the nation at large.

So we should expect major defections to the third parties this time around. This peculiar 2016 dynamic demonstrates that pollsters should include the third parties in every test, and they should only report the results of the four-way race, not the head-to-head. In reality, the media is doing the exactly opposite, only reporting the head-to-head, and only the most extreme leads for Hillary. So you see, you poor abused Trump supporter, you really do have reason to believe that the media is out to get you and you also have validation for looking only at the the four-way race.

 

 

Third Parties will matter in 2016, and the polls should reflect thatGary Johnson by Gage Skidmore 5 (cropped 5x7 small)JillStein Tar Sands Blockade (cropped) 

Brexit is a harbinger that the American election is tracking closelyBritain over Europe 2

There is Almost Certainly a Hidden Trump Vote

There likely is a hidden Trump vote that is not showing up in the polls, probably worth two or three points, but maybe as much as five or six points. If you doubt this, you have to look no further than the Brexit vote for evidence. The establishment attacked Brexit in the same way it is attacking Trump, with charges of racism, ignorance and constant polls showing a Brexit loss. But Brexit didn't lose even though most of the final polls showed that it would. Almost every poll showed the Remain side winning, one respected poll by as many as ten points. Yet the the Leave side won by four points. Clearly when the media and pop culture establishment has its favorites, it can create a perception that it is winning. Even supporters of Brexit who wanted Leave expected that they would lose because of the media and celebrity campaign aimed at convincing them they would lose.

So even though Brexit supporters thought they were going to lose, and the polls almost exclusively showed Remain winning comfortably, Brexit won. The same types of themes and players are involved in the American 2016 election as in Brexit. Brexit was considered racist by the establishment because of its focus on British nationalism and wanting to limit immigration. Donald Trump is considered racist by the establishment because of his emphasis on American nationalism and wanting to limit immigration.

Brexit was viewed as protectionist by the establishment, including the Conservative party establishment who exalts completely free trade. Donald Trump is considered protectionist by the establishment, including the conservative establishment who also prize completely free trade above everything, including human rights. The conservative establishments in both nations prefer to ignore the virtually slave labor that Brits and Americans must compete against, all for the sake of "free" trade.

Both nations are also suffering from long-term economic stagnation in the labor market. The labor voter is frustrated in each nation and one can easily imagine workers who typically do not vote turning out to vote with the very targeted approach of the Brexit campaign and Trump. One can also imagine those same people refusing to talk to pollsters who they view as hostile to them.

The media treats Trump in the same way it treated Brexit, as racist, ignorant and protectionist. It heaps poll after poll on us while stridently condemning Trump and all who would even consider voting for him, as they did with Brexit. Some of the same pollsters are finding Trump behind by similar margins as they found Brexit behind, such as Ipsos. In many ways, Brexit and Trump are cousins. We should expect that there is a hidden vote for Trump as there was for Brexit. The average of polls heading into the vote showed Remain winning by two points, although it ultimately lost by four points, a six-point swing. If we apply the same swing to the average of four-way polls in this election, a Clinton four-point lead, we see Trump actually winning by two points. Follow my new Twitter account for daily tracking of the states that really matter!

Glenn Beck's appalling judgment - Trump "dictatorship" more dangerous than certain leftist judicial tyranny

Glenn Beck (25657341265) 

Glenn Beck has warned that Donald Trump, if elected, will become something akin to a South American dictator and throw out the Constitution. This, mind you, he would do in the face of brutal opposition from 90% of American media, Congress, academia and pop culture. This possibility, in Beck's mind, is a greater threat than Hillary's Court undermining and rewriting the Constitution.

Beck claims his greatest desire politically is to preserve the US Constitution, but considering the extraordinary assumptions and leaps in logic Beck regularly employs to fuel his hatred of Trump, it sure looks much more like a personal vendetta. Glenn Beck paid for the set of the Oval Office from the movie JFK so he and his toadies could sit in it everyday. He also endorsed a candidate in the primaries, Ted Cruz. Beck not only endorsed Cruz, but worked very hard, dedicating time, money and hours of radio time, to electing Cruz. To put it bluntly, he's obsessed with the presidency.

But in Beck's quest to gain easy access to the real Oval Office through Ted Cruz, he lost to Trump, and lost badly. It seems inescapable to conclude that a major component of Beck's opposition to Trump is pure envy and bitterness. Nothing else explains his complete lack of logic when advocating opposition to Trump. He talks about a "hundred year plan," and that his audience will be the "remnant" that saves America. This kind of thinking is either delusional in a western socialist democracy, which we will become if Hillary can pack the Court, or it imagines embracing revolution. If Beck wants a revolution, he should just openly advocate for one, or he should drop this crazy opposition to the only candidate who can save the Court and back Trump. Given Beck's penchant for casual hyperbole when the mood strikes, it is much more likely that this is delusional thinking fueled by bitterness from the loss rather than a call to revolution.

A fair observer could conclude that Beck's behavior, considering its extreme leaps in thinking all serving the purpose of opposing the one who stopped his presidential candidate with whom he had a very close relationship, is indicative of an obsession with the presidency. It is more megalomaniacal than sacrificial or prophetic, as Beck would have you believe.

For Glenn Beck, the risk of Trump becoming a dictator is so great that he is willing to pay the enormous price of giving leftists control of the Supreme Court for decades, and perhaps even a century. That spells the end of our republic.

Maybe this makes sense to Glenn Beck as he sits dreaming in his air-conditioned Oval Office set, marinating in delusions. But to the rest of us conservatives, it's appalling. The following holdings from the Supreme Court would soon follow a Trump loss that Glenn Beck so badly covets.

Immediate implications of a Hillary Court

5-4 cases that would shift in the other direction, immediately

Prayers in any civil context would be banned

Federal government would receive more power to regulate state election processes based on race

Legality of lethal Injection would be imperiled

EPA could set emissions limits with no cost-benefit analysis

Corporations may no longer contribute money in political elections

Company's owned by Christians will be forced to pay for abortion and contraception

Bad decisions that would become permanent

Decision favoring Obamacare subsidies that were not provided for in the law, but invented by the Court

Holding that courts can impose race tests on state legislature redistricting

New Rulings that would fundamentally change America

Guns would be (banned) permitted for official and well-regulated militia's only

Polyandrous Marriage

 

PROPAGANDA: information of a biased nature to promote a political view

It seems incredible, but the mainstream media is spinning for Clinton and against Trump in virtually every political report or analysis you see, hear or read. That is no exaggeration. The facts are mere details to incorporate only when it serves the narrative; the rest is just storytelling. Consider Breitbart's powerful condemnation of such dishonest "reporting."

Hillary Clinton's Worst Week--Yet According to MSM, Her Best Week

This race is tightening according to the recent national polls. The media is now pointing to state polls in battleground states, and primarily Pennsylvania. +3 Ohio | +4.5 Florida | +9.2 Pennsylvania. But they fail to mention that Clinton has spent millions in those states and Donald Trump spent his first dollar in any battleground state just this weekend. We must also remember that the Democrats had their convention in Pennsylvania. Trump is close in both Ohio and Florida, within the margin of error, despite the horrible six weeks he had prior to last week. Last, most of these polls are of registered voters, which feature a built in bias towards Democrats. That should be the story, that this really is still a close race. That story will almost certainly emerge in the next couple of weeks as registered voter polls subside, polls that always favor Democrats. The media is going so overboard now, they really risk their credibility with the left and the right. The left just won't trust them because when Trump comes back, as he is doing, they just won't trust their analysis anymore.

 

EP - Detail of a New York Times Advertisement - 1895

The New York Times admits it is biased in this election in this piece, Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism

 

PRESIDENTIAL TRUMP: Trump visits Louisiana flood victims as Hillary rests and Obama vacations

Breitbart | Lifezette | NY Times | Fox News | Permaink

The Hillary health question is really starting to gain legs. The campaign has responded to it and the liberal media has even shown some interest. Today's contrast feeds this story. Watch in coming days.

 

 

 

 

  Barack Obama playing golf

GAME CHANGER

Republicans will unite behind this speech.

This speech hit all the right notes. If Trump continues to give these speeches full of substance, bold conservatism with a compelling delivery, one wonders how his movement won't draw in those wary Republicans still lurking out there. If he can solidify the Republican party, Trump at least draws to a tie, but more likely pulls into the lead.

 

It's a 4-point race: Hillary's bump is gone, Trump support still depressed from media onslaught

The Real Clear Politics 4-way race average shows a 5.8% lead, but for some reason RCP is including two polls with data that is over two weeks old, both of which still reflect Hillary's bump. Looking only at polls taken in the last week and a half, the lead is 4.4%. That average includes three registered voter polls, which almost always oversample Democrats, as liberal polling guru Nate Silver demonstrates on his website. Because every possible voter has never shown up in any election anywhere in the world, let's knock out the registered voter polls and keep it just to likely voters. Now Trump trails by 3.7%. That's a much closer race than the lying liberal media want you to see, and it's this close with an entire media establishment viciously attacking Trump constantly, a campaign that has been in disarray, and spending zero dollars on advertising. All that is about to change, except the media attack part, so watch out for a Trump bump that will likely stick around.

 

 

Watch Trump's last-minute speech on race and crime in riot-rattled Wisconsin

This is something Hillary Clinton would never do, deliver a major speech at the last minute, sure to be carried live on all three news networks. It is Trump's advantage, and his curse, his ability to perform in compelling ways on live television. If he sticks to a script, that could make all the difference.

It appears to have been a home run, garnering millions of politically minded viewers for nearly an hour on one of the hottest news topics in the land. This kind of thing absolutely can reshape this race.

Trump has certainly hurt himself with ill-advised off-the-cuff remarks, but mostly his presence on the television screen in person and live tends to help him. Hillary, however, tends to fall in the polls when she is in front of the camera. She is working a four-day week of late because of this dilemma. As the election nears, she can't continue to hide. The debates will put her in front of much larger audiences than the conventions. Trump is behind right now, but he's improving and Hillary has to come out of the shadows fairly soon. The media can't do her job forever.

 

 

 

Trump reshaped the election Monday, but will he step on it?

Trump proposed "extreme vetting" of Muslims, including questions testing their commitment to womens' rights, gay rights and religious pluralism

Milo thinks that Trump has outflanked Hillary on gay rights, Donald Trump Just Overtook The Democrats On Gay Rights

Trump likened this approach to the one taken by Reagan during the Cold War, where Russian tourists were heavily scrutinized. So this policy has eclipsed Trump's past proposal on a Muslim ban that has caused controversy, and given him an umbrella under which he can repackage that proposal into a much more palatable and reasonable policy. His suggestion that we ban Muslims has transitioned to a Cold War Reagan type policy on Russian tourists of extreme vetting on the basis of American liberal values. That's a position Republicans, and even NeverTrumpers, can get behind. Further, this speech reiterated his approach on ISIS, that being one that prizes unpredictability, another Reagan hallmark. Dare I say it? Trump is making sense in that he is featuring consistency in his foreign policy, something Hillary rarely does, and something that will win over NeverTrumpers.

Not only does this policy approach leave behind any notion of banning Muslims while adhering to the logical principals behind the ban, it also advances the Republican position on gay rights in a way that all Republicans will unite behind. The most conservative to the most socially liberal Republicans will agree on this approach; conservatives because it offers a way to ferret out dangerous radical extremists and liberals because it protects homosexuals, and that will help Trump enormously over the critical next few weeks. So the speech brought forth a coherent policy that Hillary will almost certainly adopt portions of, probably the questions relating to womens' rights and gay rights, which will highlight those areas where Clinton has copied Trump, reversing some of the damage Trump has done to himself in the last few weeks.

Trump simply needs to talk about these uniting themes every day and abandon the old bluster to turn this election around. The policy is sound and he has had an uncanny ability to make the right calls on foreign policy on the Iraq war and post-war where Hillary has not. When Hillary adopts his approach, that will remind people of this uncanny ability he has demonstrated.

If he just sticks to this script every day without making statements that can be taken out of context and abused, he should bring this race back to parity by the debates. If he can get to even or close to it by the debates, he will almost certainly emerge ahead of Hillary after the debates. The expectations for Trump are so low, it's hard to imagine how he can't exceed them. After the debates, does anyone not expect the rest of the emails to emerge? That's the winning formula for Trump, and it started today. But will he step on it? We'll see.

Trump smiling with eyes closed

Trump needs to stick to specific policy proposals that unite Republicans while happily engaging the media that is attempting to destroy him. No more complaining about the media, because everyone knows he's getting a raw deal, so just roll with it. That's how Reagan did it, and Trump has the personality and skill to do the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A harsh Trump critic pleads with #NeverTrumpers to consider the devastation a Hillary Court wreaks on our republic

Permalink

Hugh Hewitt, a harsh Trump critic on constitutional and conservatism grounds, pleads with #NeverTrumpers to reconsider their steadfast opposition to Trump. He argues that Trump's conservative list of Supreme Court picks can be relied on because Mitch McConnell can block any nomination that isn't from that list, and he will defend that list.

Read Hugh Hewitt's piece, Once more into the Supreme Court breach

The argument is sound. Not only will Mitch McConnell have an ideological motivation to block any non-list Trump picks to the Court, but he will have a political one as well. The conservative block in the Republican party rules the roost, both in Washington and in McConnell's Kentucky. If Trump were to appoint a person not on the list, or substantially conforming to the principles that shaped the list, and McConnell did not block the nomination, repercussions would be severe for McConnell and the GOP hopes for controlling the Senate. We have every reason to believe Trump appointments will be from the list.

Not only does McConnell have the political and ideological motivations to enforce the Trump list, but he would certainly relish the prospect of garnering the adoration of constitutionalists for his steadfast act of defense of the Constitution in the face of a Trump abandonment of the list. Trump, likewise, will have no reason to abandon the list. His base has been conservative. To abandon this base would be to abandon the presidency, as all hopes of reelection and any support for him in all respects and at all times by the core of his base would blink out.

Why won't #NeverTrumpers 'take "yes" for an answer?' Deroy Murdoch argues in the National Review that #NeverTrumpers ignore Trump's pick for VP, the Supreme Court list, waking up about fundraising, a Reaganesque economic proposal and stopping Obamacare, and are actually supporting the election of Hillary Clinton

See Never Trumpniks Pave Hillary's Path to Power

Certainly close election followers have read and heard many times this election that we have a binary choice. That is not only practically true, effectively true, or essentially true; it is ABSOLUTELY true. We only have two choices. No third party will win the White House. So if one wants to deal in reality on such weighty matters as the future makeup of the Supreme Court, he or she will abandon ridiculous notions designed only to confuse those following the debate. Or worse, these #NeverTrumpers are attempting to push one who would vote for Trump if he or she had full knowledge of the future implications of not voting for him, away from Trump, by pointing to someone designed to appeal to ideological purity or stylistic preferences, who has no chance of winning. It is not too much to suggest that these third and fourth options are stalking horses currently hiding #NeverTrumpers' true desire to elect Hillary Clinton out of pure rage and petty vindictiveness.

Evan McMullin or Gary Johnson simply can't win this election or even a single electoral vote. To vote for them is not only to waste your vote, it is to make a mockery of its importance. Those who make such a choice on grounds of defending the constitution will face a lifetime of gut churning guilt as they see the leftist Court rob our Constitution of its ability to limit political power and rewrite our Constitution from the bench. They will watch their children suffer in a nation that is no longer governed by the rule of law, but leftists whose power is effectively unrestrained when paired with a leftist media and an army of millennial lemmings guided by propagandists on their smart phones.

This list of consequences is horrifying. The right to free education well into adulthood will legally trample any social stigma attached to such prolonged adolescence. The Court, our Supreme Court, will mock and attempt to humiliate anyone who insists on personal responsibility on this front, and idiots at Google and the new media elite will back them up. The Supreme Court will join the likes of Bill Maher as crusading secularists bent on weakening all social pressures to embrace a theistic world-view and any moral framework that follows by labeling such paradigms as bigoted because they disparately impact people who were born gay, AND LITERALLY FOR NO OTHER REASON. Our Supreme Court will become that empty headed pseudo-intellectual preaching to everyone about love and fairness with no thought to practicality or reality. The irony will sicken the constitutionalists as our governing structure will become unmoored as liberal dogooders impose their will through "interpretation," which will really be rewriting of that very Constitution they so prize. How repugnant to them, but it is them we will have to thank.

The cultural war will end, and at its conclusion we will find the radical left victorious, wearing black robes and feeding on our young. Those of you who can't stand Trump will be to blame. By looking at the polls, you are currently making the difference. You should be ashamed and you will be held morally accountable by your fellow conservatives who are not letting blind jealous rage blind us to reality.

Trump's Newest Defender - This is about the survival of the "basic structure" of the republic

Hugh Hewitt

Mitch McConnell is the ultimate Trump card for conservatives in Donald Trump Supreme Court appointments

Mitch McConnell 113th Congress 2013 

Despite every reason to do so, the stalking horse #NeverTrumpers seem unable to let go of their rage

RO(1875) P215 APPROACHING THE FOWL WITH STALKING-HORSE 

MittRomney croppedSasse, Ben 2013-11-04a  
George WillStephen F. Hayes by Gage Skidmore  

Looking closer at those latest NBC/Marist Poll Numbers

The latest batch of Marist poll numbers in key battleground states look bad for Trump, but let's look closer at those numbers. First, the results.

PA: 48 Clinton. 37 Trump. MOE +/-3.4.

OH: 43 Clinton. Trump 38. MOE +/-3.3.

IA: 41 Clinton. Trump 37. MOE +/-3.3.

Why these results are not really as bad as you think for Trump.

Well in Iowa and Ohio Trump is within the margin of error, so that's not so bad, considering that Trump has had an avalanche of hostile media, in part brought on by himself. But wait, the lead for Clinton is 5 in Ohio and 4 in Iowa, both of which are larger than the 3.3% margins of error? No, that's wrong, and it's a mistake most journalists reporting on these stories make. The +/- signs before the margin of error indicate that you must add or subtract the margin of error, 3.3 in this case, to each result. So it is possible that you add 3.3 to Trump's result in Iowa, getting 40.3, and subtract 3.3 from Clinton's result in Iowa, or 37.7, to show Trump actually leading by 2.6 points. Same for Ohio. So anytime a poll is within the margin of error, it can reasonably be interpreted as a toss up, especially when one candidate has received very bad coverage recently that is likely to subside.

But in Pennsylvaina, Trump's numbers are not good. He would almost certainly lose Pennsylvania if the election were held today among ALL REGISTERED VOTERS. But no election anywhere in the world sees all registered voters turn out. Pollsters who want to save a little money will poll all registered voters. They don't have to call as many people this way, because when they determine who is actually likely to vote, they realize a lot of people are going to stay home and they have to call another two or three thousand people.

Another possible reason that a media organization might report a poll of all registered voters, instead of likely voters, is that Democrats almost always do better among all registered voters. That is because Democrats are almost always less likely to turn out and vote than Republicans.

These poll numbers show Trump down in a bad media cycle, but they also don't show Clinton at, above or even near 50 in a good media cycle for her.

Clinton, if she really had a commanding lead, would be at 50% in these polls. The fact that she can't get 50% in a registered voter poll, means her normal pool of potential Democratic voters is definitely smaller than normal for a Democrat. If Trump can just stop saying things the media stops finding so outrageous, he will naturally bounce back to a lead and Iowa and Ohio and probably and a tie among LIKELY voters in Pennsylvania. Clinton is a 48 in PA, but that only means among all POSSIBLE voters, she is getting 48% in a good media cycle. She will likely not have a good media cycle on election day becuase of a likely October surprise, which means her actual pool is more like 45%. With the natural inferior turnout of Democrats and the Democrat's lack of enthusiasm for Clinton, this race is still one Hillary can easily lose.

NBC News 2013 logo

Marist.square

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rudy-Cuomo Battle on the Liberal Media

Highlights of the Interview

Full Interview

 

 

Political Jiu Jitsu? Is Trump hiding his graceful side, only to display it at just the right time

According to this preacher, Trump has been searching for God for at least fourteen years. Trump may very well be emphasizing his brash side as a matter of strategy. The play is simple. His personality and brashness become the focus of the entire campaign. He monopolizes the media coverage, though often in a negative way. This goes on for weeks. Then the moment, Trump schedules a Megyn Kelly special on Fox broadcast and comes clean, admitting the mistakes and asking for forgiveness, with his personal spiritual advisor of fourteen years by his side. At that point, about the time Hillary will be hit with more emails showing that she was in fact trading American diplomatic policy and actions for personal wealth.

Before you dismiss this theory out of hand, consider the benefits of such a strategy. It takes the focus off of policy details, a Trump weakness, for many weeks. It keeps the a very large number of people interested in the election, which helps him because he wants to pull voters that don't normally vote. Last, it gives him almost complete control of the election news cycle. He can go out, make a brash statement to dominate the news for a few days, knowing all the while he will make amends with the truth of his viewpoint later on. Just saying, it makes some sense. And remember, it only has to work with Republicans to make the difference.

 

 

Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway

Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway

 

What's In Hillary's Deleted Emails? Here Are 5 Theories.

 

 

Liberal media smacked down on BS claim that Trump was inciting violence

Trump Frenzy Proves Media Need Xanax

Watching the liberal media lose their minds over Donald Trump's comments has been disheartening, but also rather humorous becuase of the extreme nature of their reaction. They have taken a point from the Democratic stategy, to make Trump look violent, and have run with it. Don Lemon dutifully parroted the Democratic talking point, that Trump is violent, and acted shocked that anyone would disagree. As he explained what a talking point is, Don demonstrates that he is just spouting liberal media talking points. When it's pointed out that the media said nothing about Obama's comparing Republicans to terrorists, he sighs, obviously realizing his own bias.

 

Media Freaks When Donald Trump Jokes About the Second Amendment, Stays Silent When HIS Life Is Threatened

 

The open corruption of the Clintons isn't worth looking into folks

3 Justice Department Field Offices Wanted to Investigate The Clinton Foundation. The DOJ Refused Anyway.

Loretta Lynch’s Justice Dept. Declined FBI Request To Investigate Clinton Foundation

We have open corruption in our political system that the media knows about and won't talk about. That makes the media corrupt. When a nation has corrupt media, we are not far from losing our freedoms. It really is this bad.

Loretta Lynch, official portrait  

Clinton Image Source

Outrageous suggestion. Is it true?

Assange suggests DNC involvement in a murder related to DNC email leaks

Permalink

 

 

JAssange 

 

 

 

 

Media admits the obvious

VIDEO: We HATE Trump and want him defeated

In case you hadn't noticed, the press is abolutely trashing Trump, over and over again, in an attempt to stop Trump from winning. Those engaging in such poltically motivated action put down their journalistic roles and fill the role of a political operative. Should Democrats crusading against Trump in the disguise of journalists be challenged? Yes. So as citizens, we must challenge these journalists wherever it is possible. Send a Tweet, or a hundred Tweets. Keep posting on Facebook. These are means of poltical influence that can neutralize a hostile media.

 

Media Freaks When Donald Trump Jokes About the Second Amendment, Stays Silent When HIS Life Is Threatened

Flickr - Official U.S. Navy Imagery - The SECNAV interviews with MSNBC broadcast journalists on the set of the weekday morning talk show "Morning Joe" in New York. 

 

 

 

Poll: Trump Gaining

It looks like the bounce for Hillary is starting to go away. We should know for sure in about two weeks.

Can Trump catch up? It seems to come down to whether he is willing to soften his image and act "less impulsive and more focussed"

 

 

 

 

 
Donald Trump Approves 2016;

Quinnipiac Battleground Polls

 

 For Trump supporters looking for some hope, here ya go! He's basically tied in Ohio and Florida, but is trailing by ten points in Pennsylvania. Clinton is not over 50% in Pennsylvania, however, and it's also the worst point in the election cycle for Trump. So if he can gain back some of the Republicans he has lost, and that is likely to happen, he can win. Hillary will bleed support as Trump ads go up and more emails continue to drip out. This is her high-water mark, no doubt, and shes under 50%.

Remember also that Trump has not spent a dime on advertising in any of these three states. Hillary has spent a fortune. Once he does, that will get him a few points. Also, the media attack will have to relent becuae it can't possibly sustain at this level. Even their partisans are getting a little uneasy about the level of sheer unfairness. We are American afterall, and Americans don't like rigged outcomes. Not to mention that Trump has built his campaign on the assumption that the media will do this.. Last, Trump will likely avoid hostile interviews and stay more on script. All of these things will combine to transform this race back to competitive.

 

 

More numbers from battlegrounds showing Trump close

As much as NBC tries to make these numbers look good for Hillary, they still show Trump very close to Hillary in all but Pennsylvania. Trump is down eleven in PA, but that's where the Democrats had their convention, so you have to figure the bounce is more pronounced there.

Honestly, it's really just not that bad for Trump right now. These polls paint a picture of a close race considering this is just after the Democratic convention.

 

Save our Constitution. Stop the judicial tyrrany that Hillary will impose!

US Supreme Court