DISQUS

Monday, August 22, 2016

Hillary's "Campaign" An Insult To Voters

Where is Hillary? Is there in actuality a Democratic candidate? One would be forgiven, surely, for thinking there isn't one given the so called campaign that Hillary Clinton is "running".

Is not holding large public meetings (presuming she could in fact gather a large enough audience to fill a substantial venue) an acceptable manner of running for the highest office in the land?

Is not presenting policies in a detailed version on the campaign trail instead of just  shouting slogans the proper manner of giving the voters a reasoned choice?

Is not holding a single press conference in 267 days, which even the Washington Post considers a scandal, acceptable.

Is not forthrightly answering questions as to the state of her health giving the public confidence that she could stand the strains of office.

Is just parroting and criticizing Donald Trump's statements instead of discussing her own vision for America not an insult to voters?

There has not been a presidential candidate in living memory who has conducted such a negative, small and obscure campaign. 

Even those candidates, presidents running for reelection and taking the 'demands of the office' manner still had more public meetings and made more policy statements than Clinton.

It appears that Clinton thinks she can just waltz to the election by raising money and hiding from the public whilst being aided and abetted by a compliant and complicit media. 

This is pure arrogance and can lead to the end result of the Brexit team whose arrogance led to their shock defeat and "Dewey defeats Truman."







Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Where Are The "Army Of Lawyers" To Investigate "Heartbeat Away" Tim Kaine ?

"Sarah Palin is a heartbeat away from being president as running mate to a 72 year old cancer survivor." So said the Democrat's and the media in the first full flush of the shock of McCain taking a 12 point lead after her nomination as his VP running mate.

They even dredged up doctors to show a post-operative skin cancer scarred McCain whilst they intoned sonorously that his chances for survival were very much in question "McCain is 72 and has had cancer four times."

In contrast Hillary Clinton's manifest health issues, age,seeming odd reactions, coughing fits, inability to stand for periods at her events and now a stool, rescue assistants always at hand have elicited hardly any media comment whatsoever.

What has elicited absolutely zero media attention is  that her running mate Tim Kaine is "a heartbeat away from an obviously ill and weak soon to be 69 year old.

In the McCain "heartbeat away" situation the media, as mentioned, endlessly harped on McCain's age and health. 

Given their preoccupation with Palin (I doubt if McCain's age/health would have been mentioned at all Lieberman or Romney had been his VP)  they felt it was their "journalistic duty" to investigate every possible facet of Palin's life and career as, according to them, she could easily become president in case of McCain's untimely demise.


They even sent an army of 30 lawyers to Alaska to undertake "Operation Palin"

"It's no surprise, then, that Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin's hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background. My sources report the first wave arrived in Anchorage less than 24 hours after John McCain selected her on August 29."

And hand in hand with this every aspect of her personal life, her family life (especially her pregnant daughter) her sisters's divorce, the supposed "affair" with her husband's business partner and anything else they could dredge up no matter how bizarre and scurrilous, was examined in minute detail. 

Now, is it too much to expect that even one tenth of the attention paid to Palin under the circumstances could now be paid to VP candidate, "a heartbeat away from the presidency" Tim Kaine? For "journalistic duty"?

After all,the same aspects that so concerned the media in 2008 are in place with Hillary now. Kaine could become "the most powerful man in the world" and what exactly does the country know about the man, and his family, and his record and his possible indiscretions? Frankly they know next to nothing.

Since Kaine could, like Harry Truman, be thrust into the presidency within months of being elected vice-president surely the media, no matter how leftist and supportive of Clinton, owes it to the public to actually do their job? Or does "investigative journalism" and media sensationalism only apply to Republicans?

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Tale of Two Convention "Bounces" There Was Only A Half Point Difference


Summary; Trump's peak post convention bounce week one was   +4.0 points
                         Hillary's  post convention bounce week one was  +4.6 points



Poll result July 17th one day prior to both convention   Trump 42.9 %  Clinton   42.2%    Trump   +0.7 Points

Poll result August 11th two weeks post conventions
Trump 43.1%    Clinton  44.2%     Clinton +1.1 Points 

  ******************************************************************               

Difference after both conventions


1. Donald Trump's Convention "Bounce"


Using the USC/LATimes daily tracking poll the RNC results were as follows;


Republican National Convention July 18-21
Trump's poll on the last day    43.4%

Seven day post convention July 22nd to July 28th 

Trump's peak poll July 27th     47.4% +4.0 points (8.4%)                                                  
Trump's final week poll day                                     
                   July 28th                  46.7% +3.3 points  (5.8%)

Two weeks 8/4 post convention 
                                                     44.6% +1.2 points  (2.6%)

**********************************************************

2. Hillary Clinton's Convention "Bounce"


Using the USC/LATimes daily tracking poll which is the only poll publishing daily results the DNC results were as follows;


Democratic National Convention July 25th to 28th
Clinton's last day of the convention poll number was 40.6%


Seven days post convention July 29th to August 4th.


Clinton's peak post convention poll was (August 4th) on the final poll day  45.2 %                                                
   
One week post convention bounce was 4.6 points  (10%) 

Two weeks post convention August 11th 
44.2%  +3.6 points  (+8.1%)                 


Wednesday, August 10, 2016

DEM’S APPROACHING CRISIS; If Hillary’s Health Gives Out Who Can Replace Her?




The obvious examples of Hillary Clinton’s health problems are too numerous to be denied. The videos of her coughing attacks, seeming blank patches of speech halt, the intervention on stage by her handler all have been widely circulated on the internet.

Her media handlers pointing to a doctor’s statement that is a year old suggesting she is in “good health” after the need for a major medical intervention give nobody any confidence in her current medical situation.

This is only at the early stage of the grueling general election campaign and should a major health incident or a substantial coughing fit during the debates take place the voter’s confidence in her ability to serve out a full four year term would, rightly, be strongly shaken.

If, as is quite possible, Clinton is unable to continue with the campaign because a debilitating incident or a major event such as a coughing fit so hits her polling position she could quite possibly, and quite rightly, have to discontinue her run.

This would of course be disastrous for the Democratic party,  not least because who would replace her is a matter of no immediate answer given the Dem’s lack of a “deep bench.”

Sanders would of course normally be given the role as the runner up in the primary campaign. However the former Independent, then Democrat stated he would return to the senate as an independent once again. 

That the party could be headed by someone who has clearly stated he doesn’t wish to be a member would surely preclude him from being the replacement nominee.

How such a scenario would go down with Sanders supporters who would have seen him rejected twice would be an unpleasant spectacle and would see whomever was chosen in his stead being deserted by those who, in loyalty to Sanders, supported Hillary no doubt against their will.

Who then? Joe Biden, whose age and personal family concerns precluded his seeking the office? He might out of party loyalty but whether his heart would be in the campaign is a matter of doubt.

Kaine? Who? Kaine’s claim to the nomination is tenuous at best with only  his situation as having been picked as a  “safe”  and innocuous VP choice from a marginal state without having participated in any way in the run up to the nomination. In fact if participation has any bearing on the matter Martin O’Malley has as good a claim to the nomination as anyone.

Elizabeth Warren was briefly trotted out as an attack dog and the quickly shunted into the background. Whether the DNC would wish to have a female Trump  opposing  him is a matter of some doubt, as would if her “favorables” would be any better than Hillary’s terrible ones are currently.

Beyond these luminaries it is difficult to imagine who might take Hillary’s place if need be-except for, yes, Michelle Obama. 

She is the one person who could legitimately run as “Obama’s third term” and do well keeping together the coalition of overwhelming Black support which might have dissipated with Hillary ( or any other successor) and keep the rust belt states in play against the strong challenge from Trump. 

But whether she would wish to run, something she has given no indication of entering her mind is another question, but DNC pleading “for the sake of America” might override any personal considerations.

As it is the Democrats have the sword of Damocles clearly dangling and if it falls they may not survive its descent no matter who the fallen swords point points to. 

Their collective prayers must surely be for Hilary’s health to hold out for the next 90 odd days-or else catastrophe awaits.






Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Poll Of Tracking Polls; First "Honest" Snapshot Of The Clinton/Trump Race



UPDATE AUGUST 24;
USC/Los AngelesTimes Poll 8/24 All tied again as Hillary (44.3 loses 2 point lead in one day to Trump (44.0)





UPDATE AUGUST 23; The race is effectively tied with the aggregate of all three polls having Clinton with a lead of 0.6 wit a slight overall move to her in the last two days (Aug 22-23) The UPI/C lags a day behind. As mentioned previously the "one off" polls lag behind the tracking polls but the new YouGov Poll Clinton +3 shows they are catching up.

UPI/C "Trump has gained 3.3 percentage points in the past week, while Clinton has lost 2.3 points, leaving the race in a virtual tie."


8/19/16 Donald Trump took the lead away from Hillary Clinton on the highly reputable USC/Los Angeles Times Daily Tracking Poll and jumped to 2 point lead  and +0.9 in the PPD Poll on 8/20

Week 2; Clinton declined from an aggregate lead of 4.1 points on August 14 to being behind by 0.6 points  August 21st




        
Clinton peaked on 8/16 at +6.5% (UPI/C Poll) and has dropped sharply since as also indicated in the chart further below.



The "one off" polls from 8/14/16 (all four candidates) have been showing  a stabilization for Clinton in the  +4 point lead range from as high as 16 points in the post DNC euphoria.

​Given the nature of the "lag" between the one off polls (and especially the state polling aggregates)​ it could be well expected that over the next weeks the one off polls will reflect where the tracking polls are.



This reflects Nate Silver's complete misreading of Donald Trump's campaign right from the first days of the primary campaign Silver weighs in that Clinton's lead has stabilized "It's clear and steady" just as the tide has turned now.




Pat Caddell; "Tracking polls tend to be much closer than one offs."


Taking respected pollster Pat Caddell's advice regarding tracking polls it seems highly possible that the aggregate of major trackers would give the least biased/distorted snapshot of where the head to head polling is at any given time.



With that as a guide the aggregate of DAILY tracking UPI/C  PPD and USC/LATimes  polls from August 8th to the 17th 2016 show these results;

The decline for Hillary in from the 13th is dramatic, from an aggregate of 4.2 on the 13th to  being behind on the 20th


Week one showed the first sign of Trump stabilization and a small 0.5 point Hillary increase. 

The various "one off" nationwide polls are showing ridiculous extremes which reflects the underlying bias/distortion caused by how they use demographics.
For example

Voters in 2012 Dem 38% GOP 32% Indie 29% New Dem 35% GOP 26% Indie 39% 18-24 year olds in 2012 19% Monmouth 25%


How polls are done "YouGov Clinton leads by 3 " Dem respondents 48% of those polled 33% were Republicans 14%


Further  proof that these polls are leftist driven for the MSM is that Quinippiac reports Trump and Clinton tied at 43% each in Florida while McClatchy/Marist has her ahead by 15 points nationwide-those results are irreconcilable of course. The aggregate of six non-tracking polls is 
Clinton +10 which gives a bias of +150% over "honest" Tracking polls.


NB; "PPD "The result of the People’s Pundit Daily U.S. Presidential Election Daily Tracking Poll released on Saturday July 30 marks the first time our internal polling data, which helped propel the PPD Election Projection Model to #1 in 2014, has been released for public consumption."
  


Senator Collins Tears The GOP Into Three If Trump Loses And So Be It

Maine's Senator Susan Collins will have torn the Republican Party into three, unless Donald Trump wins the election.

If Trump loses, and of course Collins actions would be a considerable factor in such a loss, it is impossible for the party to stay permanently unfractured after November. 

The fifty Republican security analysts who signed an open letter declaring Trump unfit for the presidency is a matter than Trump, rightly shrugged off as coming from a 'failed Washington elite." Their contribution, if any, to a Trump defeat would be be negligible and Trump's dismissal would resonate with anyone who took any notice of the signatories.

The scattering of elected Republican officials, three Congressmen in particular, who have advised they won't vote for Trump are also, in the great scheme of things, unlikely to have any bearing on his Electoral College vote, but it might have an affect on their subsequent careers at primary time.

Senator Collins betrayal of the GOP, and betrayal it is, marks a bridge too far. Even Nixon campaigned for Goldwater whose campaign makes Trump look Reaganesque, that Collins could not also be loyal, if not to Trump then to the millions who chose him in the primaries, marks an irreparable breach. 

Further Maine, where recent polling had Trump leading in one Electoral College vote district and whose four votes could be crucial makes Collins betrayal even worse than it appears.

Collins is a respected, long serving senator in a time of genuine and widespread disaffection for politicians, and given Trump's apparent problem with women voters her attack compounds the situation.

If via the desertion of Collins, the breaching of the "contract' to support the nominee by Jeb Bush and others, Trump loses then there is no possible way for the party as currently constructed to stay united. 

There is no possible way that Trump supporters can work with the "#NeverTrump" irreconcilables who are deluding themselves if they think the party will unite after November. Why on earth should any Trump supporter support any candidate that these betrayers support in future 

There will be three distinct groupings. The D.C. establishment as represented by the Bush/Romney/Graham element, the grass roots Trump supporters and the Cruz conservatives.

There is no possible way for these three utterly opposed groupings to stay together, the days of
cynical "unity" would be over and for any member of these three groups to support the other would be an abhorrent show of utter cynicism.

If Trump loses the populist "Trumpist" element would respond to the leadership vacuum (presuming Trump steps down) and a Sarah Palin type, perhaps Rubio (if not Palin herself) who combines the qualities of religious values, populist roots and mutual respect with a center-right policy. This group, which has to be a new party for obvious reasons of utter incompatibility with the backstabbers in D.C. would have the widest popular voting support.

It is conceivable that if personal animosities could be overcome and conservative leaders do not attack Trump overtly then some sort of coalition with the populists could be created, but if not there is the makings of a regional party (it would of course have no effect in the east where Cruz was battered in the primaries).

As for the establishment they  would be welcome the the name of "Republicans as they disappear down the rabbit hole where the Federalists and Whigs preceded them. Their candle will be a brief, unloved and unlovely flicker as its light, such as it is, splutters out. It is unimaginable that the vast populist movement that came to support Trump in their millions could be led by Lindsay Graham, Jeb Bush and cohort.

The transition to a new populist party will be quick and not painful, rather like a butterfly emerging from a dusty cocoon casting off the detritus of change. It may come to pass that populists will thank the likes of Collins and Graham for making this emergence possible. It would be better of course for their likes to be swept away by a Trump landslide but if that does not eventuate four years of renewal and their being discarded will be effective.



Thursday, August 4, 2016

Top 10 Reasons Why Hillary's Crowds Are So Small





1. It's summer and she blots out the sun-people can't stand the sudden chill

2. Her events take place Monday to Sunday-days when folks are just too busy

3. Frankly, hardly anyone likes her

4 When you've heard one lie-well you've heard them all

5. They saw her in 2008-once is enough

6. She drags poor old Bill along-nobody likes  to see elder abuse

7. It's too dangerous-remember she was "under fire in Sarajevo" so why take a chance

8. People are afraid their cellphones and tablets will be tapped and show up on Wiki

9. Women are afraid they will be "style-shamed" by Hillary's pantsuits

10. Trump's event is just down the road








Sunday, July 31, 2016

Why USC/Dornsife/LATimes Poll Is The "Gold Standard" Of Presidential Polls

With IPSOS/Reuters Polling utterly exposed and exploded as under reporting Trump's results by up to five points and then tweaking Hillary's upwards the polling industry, which had massive failures with "Brexit" and Donald Trump's primary campaign, is in major trouble.


Examples such as "RABA Research giving this "result" a 15 point Clinton lead

2016 General Election - Clinton 46%, Trump 31% (RABA Research 7/29)

while USC/LATimes poll on the same day give Trump a four point lead makes a mockery of any pretensions pollsters in general may lay dubious claim to.

It is my opinion that the USC/LATimes poll is the only reliable and best reference from all the polling companies mainly because of their voter pool and stability of their reporting since the poll commenced
on July 10th especially as this was a turbulent time with the Wikileaks sensations and both conventions.





Whereas traditional polling firms canvass a different group each time they poll USC has a pool of about 3000 pre-selected from which pool they choose one-seventh of the members and ask them a series of three set, unchanging questions.

The question that arises, as it does with all polls, is "what is the composition of those polled as regarding previous support i.e. how many
Dem's/Republicans/Independents? 

It is the balance of these groups that can distort polls as the Reuters and RABA examples clearly show and the Mason Dixon poll of Pennsylvania which had a much lager number of Democrat's in their sample set which gave a 9 point Clinton lead, which is more than president Obama won the state by in 2012.

What these polling outfits hope to gain by losing their credibility in pursuit of their agenda is a mystery.

The USC proportion of respondents is now shown but given the closeness of their polling which is in line with the "gold standard" the aggregate of all polls it seems apparent that they have their balance correct and that any major movement to either candidate from a static pool of voters reflects changed minds and a significant event.

At this point it can be fairly stated that the 'gold standard" for polling is the Real Clear Politics aggregate of all  (responsible) polls and the gold standard for a single poll is USC/LATimes.

I would also commend The PPD Poll as of value as it uses as similar mechanism and its result, although slighty more favorable to Trump, mirrors USC's e.g.
7/30/16. Their mechanism and latest update is at the link above.
USC Trump 46.1 Clinton 41.9 Clinton +1.3 points post DNC PPD Trump 46.8 Clinton 42.2 Clinton +0.7 points post DNC

NB; "PPD "The result of the People’s Pundit Daily U.S. Presidential Election Daily Tracking Poll released on Saturday July 30 marks the first time our internal polling data, which helped propel the PPD Election Projection Model to #1 in 2014, has been released for public consumption."

********************************************************************
Here is the USC/LATimes poll advice on how they conduct and report their findings


LA Times Tracking Poll response:

“I have no magic words. Here is what the Director of our center, Arie Kapteyn, who devised this polling approach, has to say about it:
We are being as transparent as possible by posting all information about our approach (including data, and sampling and weighting procedures) in excruciating detail on the web. We have set our procedures at the beginning of the data collection and now we just wait and see what happens. The outcomes are definitely striking and indeed different from most other polls. Four years ago, when we did the RAND Presidential poll ( most of us were at RAND at the time) it looked as if we had a bias in the direction of Obama, since we were always more to the left in our forecasts than most other polls. When all the votes were counted by the end of 2012 we were actually underestimating the final count for Obama (by a small amount) and we were closer to the final tally than any other major poll. That of course does not imply at all that we are right again this time. We have a new sample (but essentially the same method) and outcomes may just vary because samples are never a perfect reflection of the population. We are looking at the outcomes every morning with as much interest as anyone else. So we are not claiming to be right and everyone else is wrong; we have simply done the best we could and this is the result. Only in November will we know if we were right or not.
Not sure that is helpful if you are engaging in debate about which poll is correct. We have a long way to go until November.”
Frank

About the Survey✝ 

The USC Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll is part of the ongoing Understanding America Study: (UAS) at the University of Southern California’s (USC) Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research, in partnership with the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics and the Los Angeles Times. Every day, we invite one-seventh of the members of the UAS election panel to answer three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that… (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else? and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win? As their answers come in, we update the charts daily (just after midnight) with an average of all of the prior week’s responses. To find out more about what lies behind the vote, each week we also ask respondents one or two extra questions about their preferences and values. The team responsible for the USC Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election Poll four years ago developed the successful RAND Continuous Presidential Election Poll, which was based on the same methodology.


Survey Methods 


The USC Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll is part of the Understanding America Study (UAS) at the University of Southern California's Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research. It is being conducted in partnership with the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics and the Los Angeles Times.
The team responsible for the Daybreak Poll four years ago developed the successful RAND Continuous Presidential Election Poll, which was based on the same methodology.
The Daybreak Poll is based on an internet probability panel survey. Daybreak Poll members are participants in the ongoing UAS internet probability panel of about 4500 U.S. residents who were randomly selected from among all households in the United States. Members of recruited households that did not have internet access were provided with tablets and internet service. The UAS panel is still growing. We project it will reach about 6000 members in the coming months.
More than 3200 UAS panel members so far (July 2016) have agreed to participate in answering questions about the election, and we expect that number will increase over time. Each day, 1/7th of those who have agreed to participate (more than 400 per day) are invited to answer three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that... (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) if you were to vote, you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else (percentages add to 100) and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win (percentages add to 100). The order of the candidates in the questions is randomized so that about half of the respondents see Clinton as the first choice and half of the respondents see Trump as the first choice.
Each night, Daybreak Poll results are weighted to match demographic characteristics (such as race and gender) from the U.S. Census Current Population Survey, and aligned to the 2012 presidential election outcome using how respondents tell us how they voted in that election. Then the latest results, averages of all of the prior week’s responses, are posted online at https://election.usc.edu and on the LATimes.com Politics site shortly after midnight.
In particular, to obtain the values shown in the election forecast chart, we weight each respondent's likelihood of voting for a candidate with their likelihood of voting in the presidential election. Next we calculate the mean of that number for all respondents during the last 7 days, taking into account respondent level weights based on demographics and past voting behavior. This is the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for the candidate. The graph shows the estimated fraction of the votes that a candidate will get, which is computed by dividing the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for the candidate by the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for any candidate. The latter is analogously obtained as the weighted mean of the respondents' likelihood of voting in the presidential election.
To find out more about what lies behind the vote, each week we also ask respondents one or two extra questions about their preferences and values. Links to documents detailing question text, sample sizes, response rates and other information for these separate surveys are provided in the detailed information section below, linked to stories or press releases where the results were disseminated.
The Daybreak Poll began on July 4, 2016, and will run through the November election.
More information about UAS panel methodology, the panel management and survey software we developed, or our publicly available datasets are available in the links here or at the UAS site (https://uasdata.usc.edu). For other questions, or to inquire about how you can conduct surveys with the UAS panel, contact us.

Summary of links to more detailed information about the UAS Panel and the Daybreak Poll 

UAS Panel Sample and Recruitment
UAS Panel Weighting (pdf) 
Details of weighting the Daybreak Poll
Screen shot of the 3 weekly vote questions (note order of candidates is randomized)


UNDERSTANDING AMERICA STUDY

THE USC DORNSIFE / LA TIMES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION "DAYBREAK" POLL


The 2016 USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Poll represents a pioneering approach to tracking changes in Americans' opinions throughout a campaign for the White House. Around 3000 respondents in our representative panel are asked questions on a regular basis on what they care about most in the election, and on their attitudes toward their preferred candidates. The "Daybreak poll" is updated just after midnight every day of the week.