Thursday, August 27, 2015

Poll; "Why Have The Pundits Got It So Wrong On Trump?"

As poll after poll shows Trump continuously rising despite all the pollsters and pundits direst predictions and fervent hopes the question arises; how have the 'brightest and best' managed to utterly stuff this up? Here are a few possible reasons to choose from.

Monday, August 17, 2015

Is There An Electoral College Path For A Sanders Presidency?


On the negative side for Sanders aficionados the short answer is it is almost beyond the realm of possibility. On the positive side a Sanders candidacy would do much better than Mondale's and McGovern's disasters.

Although on first glance the 2012 win by President Obama seems substantial it turned on the usual suspects, a small number of key states. If Florida/Ohio/Virginia/Colorado had gone to Romney. All within the realms of possibility as the margins commenced at 0.5%  Romney would have been elected.

What gave Obama the victory was the unprecedented turnout of Black voters in Ohio without which state no Republican has ever won the presidency.

For Sanders, who is clearly struggling with Black voters at present, to gain the same amount  of Black turnout in 2016 seems improbable. Thus the smallest decline in Black turnout (not to mention vote switching to Donald Trump should he be the nominee) would make his candidacy a struggle at the very least.

Worse, should Trump be the nominee and his prediction in his message of "bring back jobs from China" and Hispanics will support me because of jobs" that he would win the "rust belt states" of Ohio/Pennsylvania/Michigan come true, then Sanders would be finished.

A possible day after the 2016 presidential election would look like this in a Trump/Sanders match-up;



If Trump were not the Republican nominee, and Michigan and Pennsylvania went for Sanders the GOP would still win comfortably.

Perhaps surprisingly even if Ohio were removed from the GOP even without Trump as the candidate the Republicans would still win the presidency as the result would be a tie with the GOP dominated House of Representatives choosing the president.

Elite Pundits Ignore"Trump Vote Block" 56% Of GOP Vote-Highest Yet

I've  explored previously how in poll after poll what I deem as the "Trump Block i.e. those current candidates who are ideologically aligned on the base/conservative side are polling between 48% to 55%.

This fact, which flies in the face of all the "experts" and pundits who have consistently advised that Trump is a flash in the pan, and that the GOP nominee will come from the Establishment side-i.e Jeb Bush. 

The poll results I have highlighted have not seen a single mention from any of the leftist media for good reason-it just doesn't fit their political view and it makes a mockery of their prognostications. More to the point their utter disdain of the base of the GOP.

They can run but they can't hide from the facts which are that in the  latest Fox poll, which is perfectly aligned with the last three polls I examined, not only has the "Trump Base" increased in support to its highest level at 56%, but the *first four on the list are all from the "Trump base".

The "Establishment" candidates total just 31% and Rand Paul 4%. This blows away the pundits claim that if Trump fails the preferred Establishment candidate i.e. Jeb Bush or perhaps Kasich  would then pick up the pieces and run away with it.

The point that if Trump did fail his support is unlikely  go to Bush and would go to either Carson or Cruz. But such is the disdain of the base by the pundits that they can only see the scenario that suits them, which has been  the case with Trump from the inception.

 On the other hand it can be plausibly argued that some of Walker's support would flow to the current "Trump Block" if he pulled out which would, on current polling put the group at  +/-60% a much more likely scenario than the pundits concept.

*Trump 25% Carson 12%  Cruz 10% Huckabee 6%  Perry 1%  Santorum 1% Jindal 1%  Total 56%


                                                              
      

Sunday, August 16, 2015

The Ten Point Case For Sarah Palin As Trump's Vice-President



GOP's Front-runner Donald Trump indicated he would wish to have former governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin  "in my administration" An administration includes, of course, the vice-president.

Asked during an interview with Kevin Scholla on talk radio show The Palin Update whether he would consider asking Palin to serve in “some official capacity,” Trump replied enthusiastically.“I’d love that,” he said. “Because she really is somebody who knows what’s happening and she’s a special person, she’s really a special person and I think people know that.”

In the interview, Trump said that both he and Palin had been victims of unfair attacks from the media. Trump said he looks at Palin’s ability to handle such coverage with admiration. “She took so much nonsense, lies and disgusting lies,” Trump said. “She handles it so well. 

She’s tough and smart and just a great woman so it’s an honor to be with you today.” “I don’t even think she knows how important she is, okay?” Trump said. “Maybe that’s part of the beauty of Sarah Palin.”


There are a number of takeaway's from that statement which lead to a case for Governor Palin as his running mate; "Trump/Palin 2016."

1. They are obviously compatible which is an important aspect of a viable campaign team. This is not the first time both Trump and Palin  have praised each other-the famous "Pizza Summit" was just one example. Trump recently Tweeted to Palin that he would "love to have another Pizza meeting."

When asked directly about a ticket Trump responded "I don't think she woudl wish to put herself through that again". That is of course a million miles from "She said she woudl not etc and leaves the door wide open.

2. Being of the same mind and personally compatible would lead to a smooth running administration. President Wilson hardly spoke to his vice-president Thomas Marshall in just one of a number of instances of poorly compatible executive team having a deleterious effect on an administration.

3. Palin would add to the team her executive experience in government at the level of hands on administration as a governor. This would help blunt the charge that Trump has no political and governing experience.

4. There are some in the base who view Trump as not a genuine Republican, much less a conservative. Palin would guarantee the enthusiasm and turnout of those potential voters and fire up the base exactly as she did for McCain in 2008 when she put him in the lead before the economic crisis made even her herculean  efforts of no avail.

5. Given that Hillary is the Dem's nominee Palin would stop the ridiculous "war on women" meme dead in its tracks. If on the other hand Hillary isn't the nominee, and there are no women on the Dem's ticket, then obviously Palin would provide gender balance to the GOP's advantage.

6. Nobody in political life has been as thoroughly vetted as Palin. There are absolutely no hidden things, real or imaginary, that the left could dig up on her that have not be canvassed in extremis. What this means is that the GOP team could proceed straight into campaigning and delivering their message without the usual distractions that the media digs up.

7. Palin's pro-life bona fides are absolute and indisputable. Her endorsement of Trump would take away any doubts potential pro-life voters might have about a Trump ticket.

8. Palin is a proven campaigner with the ability to draw massive crowds, as opposed to for example Paul Ryan who added little to the Romney ticket. The turnout for her in Florida was massive and in such a key state could be a deciding factor.

9. Palin is "media ready" she is a natural on television and her every appearance would attract substantial viewers making her a key "get' for the media and ensuring a wide audience for the ticket's message.

10. After 2008 Palin is media savvy and could handle anything the interviewers threw at her with aplomb which a novice to the media furnace might not be able to deal with.




"Trump/Palin" is literally "old hat" and the fact that it was mooted years ago shows that the concept has been taken seriously as something so obviously substantial and advantageous deserves to be. 
Whether its time has come remains to be seen, but most certainly it is to be considered seriously as the ten points (there are others of course) indicate.

Addendum; Palin on Trump.

Palin has also praised Trump in recent weeks. After Trump questioned Senator John McCain’s status as a war hero, Palin said that both men are heroes. “I have the good fortune of knowing both John McCain and Donald Trump well,” Palin told CNN. “Both men have more in common than the today’s media hype would have you believe. Both blazed trails in their careers and love our great nation.”


In 2011, after President Obama released his birth certificate: “Media: Admit it. Trump forced the issue.”
Later that year, after the two shared a pizza: “Every time you go to New York, you’ve got to see Donald Trump. … I approve of his independence.”
In 2014, after a Buzzfeed hit piece on Trump: “This nervous geek isn’t fit to tie the Donald’s wingtips. Don’t ever give him attention again.”
Palin even defended the Donald earlier this month after he bashed McCain — the man who first brought her south to the Lower 48.


Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.

Saturday, August 15, 2015

If Trump's Right Florida Or A Hispanic VP Is Not Vital To 2016


If front runner Donald Trump is correct in his assessment on which states he would win in the presidential election it is a game-changer, dramatically so;

"Trump told  Breitbart News that the Rust Belt—places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and others—where blue collar American workers, many of them Ronald Reagan Democrats, are states he will certainly win if he wins the GOP nomination.
“Those are my states,” Trump said."


What such a change in Electoral College wins would mean is that Trump would be elected president without needing to carry both Florida and Virginia. These two states went to Obama twice, albeit closely, and under the usual circumstances the loss of either, especially Florida, means that it is nearly impossible for a Republican to win.

Normally if Florida is lost the GOP supporters can turn off their televisions about 9 p.m. on election night as 29 Electoral College votes are just too many for them to pick up elsewhere-especially  given how tight the electoral map is for the GOP. Even with Florida in the bag, both Virginia and Ohio have to be won to ensure a tight victory, something that hasn't happened since 2004.
But if Trump's assessment is correct, that his appeal to blue collar voters in the "rust belt" is such that he can carry Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan he would, presuming he held the "McCain/Romney states, tie with the Democratic nominee at 269/269  (see map 1 below) at which point the election would be thrown into the Republican dominated House of Representatives* who would, presumably, choose Trump (the Senate would choose the Vice-President)

In point of fact winning Ohio/Pennsylvania and Virginia (see Map 2 below) would eliminate the need for the House to act as Trump would have 272 votes-3 more than needed. This would seemingly be an easier road to victory as Romney lost Virginia by only 3.88 points but Michigan by 9.50 points. Trump would also have to win Iowa which has been a blue state more often than red in recent years.

There are some possibly significant implication to follow if polling shows Trump holding substantial leads in these rust belt states. Firstly the "Reagan coalition" would be back in place with the combination of the 'solid South" the Midwest, plus blue collar workers, and would bring to the polls the "Perot voters" in these key states which analysis shows stayed home in 2012.

Secondly it would negate the seeming imperative to have a Hispanic on the ticket to win Florida, thus putting the chances of a Trump Bush or Trump Rubio (or even Martinez or Sandoval) further away than might have been originally considered. That's not to say any of those combination might still happen or be an insurance policy-or even icing on the cake in the Electoral College.

There are of course many reasons to have a prominent Hispanic on the ticket, not least with an eye on future demographics, but also to show that a tough policy on illegals is not aimed at the Hispanic community at large. 

On the other hand studies have shown that, apart from Florida and perhaps Colorado, the Electoral College route for the GOP is not, at present, Hispanic depended. Interestingly though, early polls in Hispanic areas have shown Trump to be the preferred choice "because of the prospect of jobs" which is if course a universal message and the key to the rust belt states as well.

MAP 1
MAP 2


*The constitution is very clear on the matter. Article 12 states, inter- alia:


"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."

Friday, August 14, 2015

After The Next Crash-What To Do With the Banks?

Very clear from the outset, I am a conservative by nature and by politics and a firm believer in the free-enterprise system. To any sensible person there is no alternative as history has clearly shown that the alternative systems of state control end badly, usually in the death of millions.

What is also obvious is that all economic systems,whether they are wrong or right, get distorted when they move beyond mathematics and the natural process of return to equilibrium. The distorting factor is of course human nature.

The banking system is rife with fraud and gross manipulation-that is incontestable. To list all the banks that have faced massive fines (but hardly any of the perpetrators going to jail) would make this article far to long-just one example, the "Libor" rigging which was a fraud involving trillions will suffice.

As is the usual case with that scandal a further regulatory system was put in place which will, possibly, close that door but only a fool would imagine for a moment that other banking rip-off schemes will be hatched, or more probably are currently going on.

A point may be raised that since there is a government guarantee on bank deposits to a more than reasonable amount, then this ongoing corruption is not a worry for the average person and the system is what it it is. It works reasonably well and there's nothing that can be done about it. That is of course an incorrect assumption;

"Because Libor is used in US derivatives markets, an attempt to manipulate Libor is an attempt to manipulate US derivatives markets, and thus a violation of American law. Since mortgages, student loansfinancial derivatives, and other financial products often rely on Libor as a reference rate, the manipulation of submissions used to calculate those rates can have significant negative effects on consumers and financial markets worldwide.

But beyond the direct affect on the individual there is the question of morality. Is it right to have an economic system where the major underpinning, the banking system, is so rife with fraud and immoral behavior? What message does it send to ordinary workers when the supposed 'brightest and the best" are shown to be immoral, venial and uncaring for anyone but themselves?

Sadly, except for eternal vigilance and a continuous patching of band aids over the festering wound of corruption nothing, similarly as with the 'War on Drugs" can be done as things stand. Only radical approaches can deal with either and can't/won't happen unless some cataclysmic force or event eventuates to open the door to amelioration.

This happened before and the steps taken were a major advance which could only have come about after some dramatic event. In 1933 at the height of the depression,  and with a run on the banks, President Roosevelt's administration saw substantial reforms which underpin the current system today. 

It is hardly beyond the bounds of possibility that the current American economy, "standing" on trillions of dollars in printed money and a stratospheric national debt might, at any point, undergo another and even more catastrophic collapse.

In the event of a major 1929 type disaster, what might be the economic and moral action as regards the banking system that might benefit the entire nation (except the fraudsters)? At that point what possible reason could there be to resurrect an inherently fraudulent, morally corrupting banking system which is impossible to control?

The alternative could be to scrap the private banking system altogether under such circumstances and re-institute the failed banks and their branches under a truly independent commission which could include representatives of as many aspects of American society e.g Unions, business people, academics, politicians, clergy and etc. 

The element in banking which seems to cause the most mischief, the demand on employees to constantly ramp up the banks profits to ensure large bonuses, would be removed as would be the grossly immoral salaries the senior bankers enjoy.

The creation of money for profit, for that is what banks do, would see the profits returned to the public who make it possible. This through either lower banking fees or payments to the federal government to reduce the national debt or to be used for more schools, infrastructure, and anything that will benefit the greatest number rather than a tiny minority.

The free enterprise system would emerge unscathed from such a change as of course banks don't produce anything in themselves, rather they enhance the flow of funds to those who do create real wealth. Why the banks should make such massive profits and corrupt the values of the country whilst doing their job is a question that needs attending to, but won't be until it is too late as the political will is not there.

There is nothing more certain, as history shows us, that the economic system is cyclical and in due course a major correction will come to the disequilibrium that is currently the situation. 

If it is of a dramatic nature it may be a blessing in disguise as it could provide the political will, overriding the deeply entrenched interests of the financial community, to permanently fix this blot on the moral landscape.


Thursday, August 13, 2015

Trump's "I Paid For This Microphone" Reagan-ite Moment



First Donald Trump stood up to the Fox hit job at the candidates debate when Megyn Kelly asked the most ridiculous "question" that any potential presidential candidate has ever been asked in such a forum. He replied with humor and dignity and fought back unbowed.

 Instead of being his downfall, as the media crowed would happen after the debate, Trump has not only held his leadership position but is now within three points of Hillary Clinton in the latest Iowa poll.

Then after Democratic Party (Socialist) Senator Bernie Sanders was cowed by a couple of radical BLM hooligans into walking off the stage after they invaded his platform at a public meeting Trump responded:

"Asked at the press availability about an incident in which Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — a contender for the Democratic nomination and the only candidate in either primary drawing crowds larger than Trump’s — ceded his microphone to two Black Lives Matter protesters who stormed the stage at an event this past weekend in Seattle, Trump called it “disgusting.”
“I would never give up my microphone,” he said. “It showed he was weak.”

These two events can be viewed as Donald Trump's
"equivalent of Ronald Reagan's "I paid for this microphone" moment which ensured his unstoppable momentum to the nomination and eventually the presidency.

A bit of history:

"In January of 1980, the Iowa Republicans decided to have a straw poll as a part of their caucuses for that year. Bush's hard work paid off, and he defeated Reagan by a small margin. Bush declared he had the "Big Mo" (for "momentum"), and with Reagan boycotting the Puerto Rico primary in deference to New Hampshire, the victorious Bush looked like he might actually beat Reagan to the nomination.

With the other candidates in single digits, the Nashua Telegraph offered to host a debate between Reagan and Bush. Worried that a newspaper-sponsored debate might violate electoral regulations, Reagan subsequently arranged to fund the event with his own campaign money, inviting the other candidates to participate at short notice.

 The Bush camp did not learn of Reagan's decision to include the other candidates until the debate was due to commence. Bush refused to participate, which led to an impasse on the stage. 

As Reagan attempted to explain his decision, the editor of the Nashua Telegraph ordered the sound man to mute Reagan's microphone. A visibly angry Reagan responded "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!" (the editor's name was in fact Jon Breen). 

Eventually the other candidates agreed to leave, and the debate proceeded between Reagan and Bush. Reagan's quote was often repeated as "I paid for this microphone!" and dominated news coverage of the event; Bush did not make an impact with the voters."


What has transpired, then and now, is that both men were perceived as fighters, uncowed by a censorious "authority" media and a blatant attempt to break and silence them. 

These were transformative moments and I have little doubt that Trump's "Reagan" moments will also be looked backing history as a major turning point.

Certainly there was the visual element to these moments but at the core there was a much deeper meaning to them which caused an "in the gut" response from the public.

The subliminal message is simply this; 

"This man fights for himself, perhaps he will fight for me, my family and my country in the same manner."

In Reagan's case the "gut-feeling" subliminal response was completely correct as will be the case with the public's reaction to Donald Trump.

Poll;What Cabinet Role Might Sarah Palin Have In Trump's Administration?

"Donald Trump would consider tapping former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to serve in his administration, the billionaire presidential candidate said this week. Asked during an interview with Kevin Scholla on talk radio show The Palin Update whether he would consider asking Palin to serve in “some official capacity,” 

Trump replied enthusiastically.“I’d love that,” he said. “Because she really is somebody who knows what’s happening and she’s a special person, she’s really a special person and I think people know that.” In the interview, Trump said that both he and Palin had been victims of unfair attacks from the media. Trump said he looks at Palin’s ability to handle such coverage with admiration. 

“She took so much nonsense, lies and disgusting lies,” Trump said. “She handles it so well. She’s tough and smart and just a great woman so it’s an honor to be with you today.”

 Which administrative post would Governor Palin be best suited for in a President Trump administration? Vote results will be passed on to the Trump team for their consideration.