Friday, May 6, 2016

Pundits Fail;Missed Trump's Campaign, As McCain's, Ended In Florida

Hindsight;"Had it been any candidate other than Trump, this race would have been effectively called weeks ago. Trump led virtually wire to wire in this race. He systematically knocked out heavyweights within the GOP -- from old bulls like Bush to rising stars like Marco Rubio and Scott Walker. He barely even stumbled in his march to the nomination."

The GOP's  2015/6 presidential primary ended in Florida, everything after that was theater, media bumf and a good training ground for the winner Donald Trump.

The media spent yesterday beating their collective breasts (those with a shred of dignity that is) about how the got it all wrong. Their mea culpa's ranged from spending their time in the DC bubble and not talking to the great unwashed to allowing personal bias to cloud over mathematics to, and showing they have learned nothing, "misreading the Republican base who turn out to be motivated by racism, jealousy and "being left behind."

The "personal bias/DC bubble" reasons are, of course, the correct ones. Not only did their personal bias make them not see the figures that were as clear as day, but they missed the simple facts of recent political history that a first year political science student could see as obvious.

The 2015/6 campaign was not, as they keep repeating "a unique experience in American political history" rather it is the mirror image of John McCain's campaign in 2008 even down to the personalities of the candidates, their key opponents and the states that decided the election.

Both men portrayed themselves as outsiders, McCain's as a "rogue' Trump as having not been part of the DC political establishment.

In 2008 McCain was written off by the media (as was Trump in 2015) lost the Iowa caucus (a sure guarantee of having an outstanding chance to be the nominee) as did Trump. He then made his big comeback in New Hampshire and scored his major wins in South Carolina and Florida. At that point McCain and Trump never looked back on their way to the required delegate numbers.

McCain, as Trump, lost to the candidate who ran as a religious conservative (Huckabee/Cruz in Iowa) defeated the establishment candidate Romney/Kasich in liberal New Hampshire, won in the deep south, supposed fertile territory for Huckabee and Cruz. McCain destroyed establishment candidates Giuliani/Romney  in Florida and ended his campaign just as Trump did the same to Kasich/Rubio who similarly ended his.

After that there was no stopping McCain and Trump, with both having the occasional setback which were just bumps in the road.

The media was so obsessed with "proving" with graphs and charts that "we seen all this before flash in the pan candidates rising and falling and Trump will just another example" showed that their bias and attachment to a model that had no basis in reality blinded them to see the obvious parallels to a campaign from only 8 years ago

Thursday, May 5, 2016

9 GOP Primaries To Come-What Happens Next As Cruz "Zombie Campaign" Continues?

There are nine more Republican primaries left, what happens to those contests? There will still, rightly, be names on the ballot other than Trump's and absentee ballots will have been cast so the process must continue.

The turn out will be I imagine very low for the remaining primaries but with 84 guaranteed from NJ/WV for Donald Trump he really only needs 100 or so from Ca to get past 1237, even without Pa's 54 unbound,with even 50% of Wash/Ore/NM) so I can't imagine any convention problems on that score.

bound: 1011
unbound: 45

1237 delegates needed to win

But there are other considerations, What happens to the Cruz and Kasich delegates that are, in some states, now unbound?
Why is it important for Trump to win as many as possible of the remaining bound delegates? See also Cruz's continued delegate hunt;

Ted Cruz’s zombie campaign   

"The Texas senator has given up on being the GOP nominee, but he’s still fighting for control of the party’s future."

To these, and other questions I corresponded with an expert on such matters and set out the pertinent replies below (red emphasis is mine)

The delegate 'slots' are initially "assigned"- via the Primary vote- as if the candidates are still active (after all, those voting in the remaining Primaries are not required to vote for Trump simply because he's now the last man standing: they can still vote for any candidate- and/or slate of delegates- still on the ballot and their votes for other than Trump still count and, as a result, still work themselves into the math which then "spits out" the resultant delegate count [unlike the Dems, the GOP doesn't have "top down" rules penalizing a candidate who has already left the race via such things as denying such a candidate certain classes of delegates])...

However, when the delegates themselves (the actual "warm bodies" occupying the seats on the floor of the Convention in Cleveland) are chosen later on, any and all relevant 
State GOP rules re: dealing with delegates originally so "assigned" to now-no longer active candidates then come into play (you would have to look at the relevant State GOP sites, for instance, if a State's GOP rules automatically free (unbind) delegates, even those of a candidate who has suspended his campaign but has not formally withdrawn, then those delegates will be formally so unbound; however, in a State where a candidate who has suspended his campaign (but not withdrawn) gets to keep his delegates, those delegates are still his (unless, of course, he later specifically releases them).
Part of what makes this so complicated is the fact that Cruz and Kasich have merely suspended their campaigns (like all the others before them who have left the field at least initially did, they have not actually withdrawn their respective candidacies per se) and not only does this allow them to still keep at least most of their delegates, this also has campaign finance law ramifications ("suspending" buys a candidate at least some more time re: legally disposing of unspent campaign funds and paying down campaign debt that withdrawing outright would not)...

as a result, it is hard to say whether Cruz and Kasich each "suspended" more in order to still "control" delegates (if only for the time being) or more because of these legal aspects re: the financing of their respective campaigns.

BTW: for a good past example of what happens re: candidates that have dropped out, see- for example- Oregon GOP 2012[via our page at the URL]. Both Santorum and Gingrich had dropped out by the 2012 Oregon Presidential Primary of that year but still won delegates in that Primary.

As for the voting in remaining GOP Primaries themselves, there will from now on be two things to watch for:

1. There might well be a "protest vote" by at least some voters not at all enamored of Trump (through voting for other candidates or their delegates [as in West Virginia next week]): it will be quite interesting to see just how much of such a thing emerges-- or not--- because

2. Now Trump has a chance to not only gain at least 1237 but to even well surpass it: and the more delegates Trump can now get through the remaining Primaries (as opposed to gaining the support of unbound delegates once belonging to other candidates and/or delegates released by other candidates), the bigger his mandate going into the Convention in Cleveland (a final post- Trump delegate total of, say, 1400+ outright would make it a lot harder for those Republican politicians and Party operatives who might still want to "turn their back" on their own Party's presidential nominee to then actually do so).

Obviously, the interplay of 1. vs. 2 above will determine if candidates other than Trump can even still get a significant number of delegates the rest of the way: in such a case (Trump winning almost all the outstanding delegates in the remaining Primaries anyway) .

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

The Pundit Class Lies Prostrate At Trump's Feet

"well, now is a time for pundit humility" Ross Douthat New York Times

After Indiana (although it was obvious after New York ) the majority of the pundit class have, however grudgingly and without shame in most cases, accepted that Donald Trump will be the GOP's nominee.

From June 16th last year when Trump announced his run the entire pundit class has ridiculed, mocked, belittled, pooh pooed, looked down their noses and all other ways that can be described as disparaging not only Trump but the, now near eleven millions of people, outside the Beltway dwellers, who voted for him. 

The only one approaching any level of self-awareness is, of all people, the elitists elitist David Brooks at the New York Times who admitted he had been living and working in a DC bubble "among people and of a class who think like I do" (who knew here was more than one such). But although Brooks has dedicated himself to actually meeting some of the great unwashed he still will not bring himself to support Trump.

The greatest irony as all these reputations lie in the dust is that if even one pundit had, around June 16th written "Trump's candidacy is certainly unusual and although the odds seem stacked against him I will report on his campaign with an open mind and, who knows, lighting might strike" and etc. that pundit could genuinely be considered as peerless and in line for a Pulitzer.

But the inbred pundit corp did not give birth to even one mutation who had the sense, foresight or lack of bias to even give Trump that tiny chance. Well more fools them. It will take years for any semblance of trust to be restored to political journalism and that will take a major effort on behalf of those predisposed to be exactly the opposite of the balanced reporter they are supposed to be.

There have been countless Beltway pundits who have come crashing to earth with the elitist denigration of Donald Trump and Sarah Palin-just a few (23 actually) with their arrogant comments are HERE

But the ones who stand about above all are the "analysts" like Philip Bump, Dana Milbank, of The 'Washington Post' and Nate Silver and Harry Enten of  'FiveThirtyEight' and Charlie Cook ('Cook Report') This crew have purveyed charts and graphs and lines and squiggles circles and squares which have one message in common. "Trump can't win."

They've advised "Trump has a 2% chance", "we've seen this scenario before with "Cain, Gingrich who briefly led then collapsed in the polls" "Trump's ceiling is 10% or 15% or 20% or 25% or 30%" Trump has "stalled, is in decline has hit his ceiling, lost momentum "the trend is your friend."

"Bill Kristol  "Trump has hit his ceiling at 30%" 

So many memories! The meme's carried on when even Blind Bob could see that Trump was ascending. "Carson will pass him, Cruz will pass him, When the field thins Trump will go down." "Trump crowds are only attending for the entertainment (people standing freezing cold for hours for entertainment is a novel concept). "Trump supporters haven't' caucused before and are not likely to show up"

My favorite, well one of them there are so many, was "Trump won't even win one state."

What is the most delightful thing to reflect on is that all these pundits have been beaten by a housewife from rural Alaska-it is really amusing, and by a sharp novice politician New York City tycoon who has run rings around them and their whole clique and cabal!

If these gentlemen were actually productively employed, say they worked for Trump, and produced failure after failure the message to them would be clear "Your fired." Unfortunately they will blithely carry on tossing red meat to their clearly blank minded audience as if nothing they said previously ever took place. Oh, except for Milbank who ever so cleverly announced he would eat his column if Trump were the nominee. I hope he is marinating it in Tabasco-enjoy!

Charles C.W. Cooke continues a long unhappy line of Englishmen who deep down don't understand the American political system and psyche. His elitism to Trump and Palin knows no bounds and perhaps he might think of taking a sober look at his prejudices-but alas in fear it is a quixotic thought. On the other hand hopefully he will follow his predecessor back to Blighty.

 The media jumped the gun at the start of Donald Trump's campaign by not only writing him off, but doing so in the most obnoxious, vexatious, elitist manner and in tones of utter Beltway snobbery.

Sadly for them, and fortunately for the rest of us watching in bemused amusement their subsequent sitting at the table where massive helpings of crow is constantly being served, they not only got it wrong but spectacularly so.

Never in the history of the political media have so many been so wrong for so long. Never have so many memes been exploded, one after another, and in short order, than all their anti-Trump blatherings. 

cataloged 30  at which point I gave up as they were coming and going so quickly their brief and passing lives made it too difficult to keep up with.

The media seem either exposed as hopelessly partisan, or utterly dim-witted despite all their credentials, or hacks under the collective thumbs of their paymasters or all of the preceding plus transfixed like a cobra under the sway of a fakir.

Is there any balm for their wounded egos, any target they can hit out at to recover their machismo after Trump has reduced them to whimpering, emasculated and impotent little boys and girls? Of course there is, and of course it is the favorite target of hate and derision-Sarah Palin.

What an outpouring of vile attacks, derision gibbering and frothing against Palin has spewed since she endorsed Trump-which endorsment was vital to hissecondplacement in Iowa and the securign of his camapigngoing forwards.

I counted five articles that were positive towards Palin, two of which were from Breitbart from among what Google advises were, so far 6,000 about her. 6,000 articles in two days on someone the media says is "irrelevant."

They can't hurt her in any way or fashion. She is not running for office, she isn't contracted to Fox (and has had a much higher media inter-action subsequently and with her own requirements) and doesn't need to worry about poll figures, popularity levels in the polls, or, which must be most galling, about what the media think about her.

Nothing the media say or do will affect Palin's standing with her millions of supporters who the media, idiotically, categorize as 'a right wing fringe." In fact all it does is solidify their support in the face of such unfair and unbalanced criticism.

The punditry have succeeded in making fools of themselves over Trump, have lost whatever level of power they used to have over the course of the political scene, and have now compounded their foolishness by exposing their resultant hate and irrationality. 

By attacking Palin who, like Trump, is utterly impervious to their squalid vituperousness they hasten their descent into genuine irrelevancy.

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Ten Shortest Serving Vice-Presidents From John Tyler (1 Month) To Carly Fiorina ( 7 Days)

With the end of Carly Fiorina's vice-presidency it is interesting to compare her tenure under President Cruz to other VP's. 

An interesting comparison of shortage of position is with Thomas Eagleton who was George McGovern's running mate from July 13th 1972 to August 1st 1972 a 19 day run compared to  Fiorina's 7 days.

The office of United States Vice-president can be almost as hazardous and more rewarding than the office of president! 

Death in office of the VP (7) is near that of death in office of presidents (8). On the other hand 9 have been elevated to the presidency via death, usually by assassination or resignation of the sitting president.

"The Vice President's primary function is to succeed to the presidency if the President dies, resigns, or is impeached and removed from office. Nine vice presidents have ascended to the presidency in this way: eight through the president's death, and one, Gerald Ford, through the president's resignation"

The tenure of some VP's has been very short-here are the shortest. Tyler and King served one month, Truman 3, Fillmore 4, Arthur and Roosevelt 6, Hendricks 8, Ford 9, Gerry 20. 

But the most poignant is the shortest vice-presidency of Carly Fiorina. This commenced April 27th 2016 and finished with the resignation of President Cruz on    /16     America will never know what glories Vice-president Fiorina may have brought if she had more time in office-we shall forever wonder.

Here are the ten shortest Vice-presidencies

Elbridge GerryMassachusettsMarch 4, 1813
November 23, 1814
John TylerVirginiaMarch 4, 1841
April 4, 1841
Millard FillmoreNew YorkMarch 4, 1849
July 9, 1850
William R. KingAlabamaMarch 4, 1853
April 18, 1853
Chester A. ArthurNew YorkMarch 4, 1881
September 19, 1881
Thomas A. HendricksIndianaMarch 4, 1885
November 25, 1885
Theodore RooseveltNew YorkMarch 4, 1901
September 14, 1901
Harry S. TrumanMissouriJanuary 20, 1945
April 12, 1945
Gerald FordMichiganDecember 6, 1973[n 4]
August 9, 1974
Carly FiorinaTexasApril 27th 2016
Campaign Died
May 3rd 2016

Once Again Iowa Decided Who Would NOT Be The GOP Nominee

Charles Hurt at The Washington Times got it exactly right on  February 2, 2016

 Well, that’s settled. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz will not be the 2016 Republican nominee for president.
At least not if recent history is any guide. It has been 16 years since Republican caucus-goers here have accurately picked the eventual GOP nominee for president. In other words, not once in this entire century has Iowa picked the winner for Republicans.
Ted Cruz joins former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and ex-Sen. Rick Santorum, who won the caucuses in 2008 and 2012, respectively.
Neither Mr. Huckabee nor Mr. Santorum were able to convert those Iowa victories into any kind of groundswell of support outside the frozen cornfields of Iowa.
Mr. Cruz carefully followed the same playbook deployed in the caucuses won by his predecessors.
First, he built a massive and highly organized grassroots ground game. It was impressive. Also, Mr. Cruz spent significant money and a huge amount of time and energy courting Iowa voters.
Mr. Cruz was handsomely rewarded with the highest number of caucus votes of any Republican in history. Which means he is really popular — in Iowa.
Similarly, Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Santorum bet their entire presidential campaigns on Iowa, and it paid off for them as well. At least, in terms of winning Iowa. In the end, of course, those victories turned out to be meaningless.
Mr. Cruz also followed in the footsteps of previous Iowa winners in that he shamelessly and overtly deployed his religious faith as a guiding — perhaps overriding — reason for electing him. The man was literally quoting scripture during his campaign events. This preaching culminated in the creepy footage of Mr. Cruz directing his supporters to “awaken the body of Christ.” Ick.
Obviously, it is a strategy that works in Iowa. But I am also pretty sure that God is not so hot about somebody awakening the body of Christ for personal political purposes. Sounds, well, a little self-centered and diabolical.
And, unfortunately for Mr. Cruz, it doesn’t usually work so well going forward. Even in a place like South Carolina where they love their Christian politicians, Mr. Trump is beating Mr. Cruz by 15 points, according to the polls.
The problem for Mr. Cruz is that it is undeniable that Mr. Trump has at least broken through to Christian voters. Many of them trust him and believe that he is serious about fighting for them and protecting religious liberty.
Mr. Cruz’s impressive win Monday night, of course, sparked a wildfire of giddy gloating among the Great Punditocracy who find Donald Trump so vulgar and repellent. It is like the only thing that matters to them is winning.
But Donald Trump had the last laugh when he walked out on the stage to deliver his concession speech.
For weeks and months we have been told that Mr. Trump cannot handle losing. His entire campaign is built around winning every time. And if he loses Iowa, we were told again and again and again, Mr. Trump would fall apart. The first chink in his armor would utterly crumple him to the ground.
Only, instead, Mr. Trump came out with his family and delivered a wonderfully gracious and funny and hopeful concession speech and told his supporters how honored he was to come in second place in Iowa.

Alas, the Great Punditocracy keeps alive their perfect streak of being wrong about everything when it comes to Donald J. Trump.
Nick Sanchez at Newsmax gave the history on February 1st.Ted Cruz can now be added to the list to make 7.
6 Iowa Republican Caucus Winners Who Didn't Become President

By Nick Sanchez   |   Monday, 01 Feb 2016 
The Iowa caucuses have been the first major electoral event in the race for the presidency since 1972, however they are a generally unreliable predictor of who will ultimately win the Republican Party's nomination, much less the general election.

"The winner of the GOP Iowa caucuses usually does not win the second nominating contest, the New Hampshire primaries, and more often than not loses the overall nomination as well," CBS News wrote during the last presidential election cycle.

The Christian Science Monitor added
 that "Iowa might be less about deciding the winner, and more about confirming the losers," and notes that no party nominee has ever finished below the top four in Iowa.

In fact, since 1972, the only Republican candidate to have won both the Iowa caucuses and the presidency is George W. Bush in the 2000 race.

Gathered below are the six men who won Iowa, but ultimately lost their bid for the presidency. Candidates who appear underlined went on to win the Republican nomination.

1. Rick Santorum (2012) — The former senator from Pennsylvania defeated former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, however it was the latter that went on to secure the nomination. Romney eventually lost the general election to sitting President Barack Obama, The Des Moines Register reported.

Rick Santorum 24%
Mitt Romney 24%
Ron Paul 21%
Newt Gingrich 13%

2. Mike Huckabee (2008) — Mike Huckabee handily defeated Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain in the Iowa caucus, but it was McCain who went on to secure the nomination. McCain eventually lost to then-Sen. Barack Obama.

Mike Huckabee 34%
Mitt Romney 25%
Fred Thompson 13%
John McCain 13% 

3. Bob Dole (1996) — The senator from Kansas defeated Pat Buchanan to win both the Iowa caucus and the Republican nomination, but lost the general election to sitting President Bill Clinton.

Bob Dole 26% 
Pat Buchanan 23%
Lamar Alexander 17%
Steve Forbes 10% 

4. Bob Dole (1988) — Both Bob Dole and Pat Robertson defeated Vice President George H. W. Bush in the Iowa primary, but it was the latter who would eventually secure the party's nomination, and go on to win the presidency.

Bob Dole 37%
Pat Robertson 24%
George Bush 18%
Jack Kemp 11% 

5. George H. W. Bush (1980) — Bush, the former congressman, ambassador, and Director of Central Intelligence defeated Ronald Reagan in the Iowa caucus, but it was of course the former Gov. of California that won the GOP nomination and presidency.

George Bush 31% 
Ronald Reagan 29%
Howard Baker 15%
John Connally 9% 

6. Gerald Ford (1976) — The only president in modern history who was appointed rather than elected won the Iowa caucus as well as his party's nomination. He famously lost to Jimmy Carter in the general election, however.

(Sample precincts straw poll)
Gerald Ford 264 
Ronald Reagan 248
Undecided 62

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 

Wrong Again!Nate Silver & FiveThirtyEight "Expert Panel"12 Consecutive Trump Predictions Flop

UPDATE:It's all over-so sadly, Silver and co have no further chances to make fools of themselves-but they still can for the general election

Indiana now added to the exploded reputation of Nate Silver and his leftist crew at 

Who is Nate Silver? (the man who stated "Trump has a 2% chance of winning the nomination on his 6 stages of doom-Trump is doomed")

Hillaryis44 summed up Silver's history concisely 
Speaking of liars and cowards, Nate Silver. Silver is the “numbers guru” who used to write for the DailyKooks (Mad Markos Moulitsas 'Daily Kos') website and trash us. Silver, in his subsequent books and writings never disclosed he got campaign data from Obama in 2008. Silver lied his way to a top column at the New York Times and now has his own website. For months Silver gave Trump single digit (2%) chances to get the nomination

Since Silver and his mate (perhaps literally) "Forecaster" Harry Enten are seen as near infallible gurus of prognostication by the leftist media it is of value to see exactly how they are doing and whether their 'reputation' is a grossly;y inflated one based on pure luck, insider information and blind chance.

Here's Silver, Enten and their 'team of experts"

"Will Trump Clinch The GOP Nomination Before The Convention?"

In addition to Nate Silver’s and my estimates, we tried to include a diverse set of opinions from across the political spectrum. We also focused on analysts who have been following the delegate race closely and know the intricacies of the GOP’s delegate rules. Our panel included these people:
  • Adam Geller: founder and CEO of National Research Inc. and the lead pollster for Chris Christie’s presidential campaign
  • Daniel Nichanian: contributing editor to Daily Kos Elections and PhD candidate in political science at the University of Chicago.
  • Henry Olsen: senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center
  • Margie Omero: managing director at Purple Insights
  • Patrick Ruffini: co-founder and partner at Echelon Insights and chairman and founder of Engage
  • David Wasserman: House editor at the Cook Political Report and FiveThirtyEight contributor

From Utah to New York-6 prognostications in a row, they achieved a 100% failure record-not one single forecast was correct, some wildly out like New York at 71 delegates for Trump who achieved a landslide of 60% of the vote and 90 delegates.

And then the from Maryland to Indiana the next 6 guesses (for that is all they are of course) completely wrong!
So they are at least consistent 12 out of 12  wrong. Getting Delaware and Pennsylvania wrong takes some doing-but they managed it.

There are nine more to go, can they make it a grand total of 21 wrong guesses? I don't do goat entrails or other omen work, but if I did I would be confident my success rate would be better than Silver and his "experts". 

Oh, and Silver's other meme is utterly exploded "Trump has won a majority of the vote only in his home state of New York.5