Trump did just fine.
He was forceful enough when needed and the forcefulness was manifestly justified in relation to Hillary's answers and especially her rebuttal. That is he was perceived as not flying off the handle even when he was being unfairly quoted/attacked.
Trump was manifestly in control of his statistics and major points without giving the impression of a stilted rehearsed set of answers.
Trump stayed true to his base on climate control,guns and law and order when he might have compromised or watered down these elements in a (mistaken) attempt to broaden his support, which would not have happened and which woudl have led to a substantial loss of support and justifiable cries of hypocrisy.
Trump didn't take the bait from Hillary when she goaded him on women's issues whilst hinting at dark events relating to the Clinton's he said he woudl hold his tongue-well done.
Trump showed a firm but fair temperament which was an absolute must for him.
In the end however the crisis of the middle class, race-relations in crisis,the mess in the mid-east/ISIS and America carrying an unfair share of world peacekeeping whilst being subjected to unfair trade practices and the disaster of FTA were all matters Hillary could not justify and make rational the promise to clean them up after eight years of causing them.
With immigration up next, surely, and this one under his belt, Trump can only move into a commanding position.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Sunday, September 25, 2016
Head to head polls, which lag the tracking polls are showing the Trump/Clinton race at a near tie while the tracking polls consistently have Trump ahead in the aggregate for 22 straight days.
The state polls which trail both the head to head and the tracking polls have had Trump close an enormous gap in the Electoral college, which is what counts in the end, to the point where he is one state from being above the 270 votes required to be elected.
If current polling trends continue, where Trump leads in a number of the key contested states in the aggregate i.e Florida, Ohio, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and one CD district in Maine, and leads in current polls in North Carolina, then the prospect of a Trump blow-out comes into view for the first time.
Here is the Real Clear Politics analysis of the electoral College situation as of today based on current latest polling which shows a Clinton 272 to Trump 266 split (270 being the winning number) and again it only takes one further state to fall into Trump's column for him to win.
New polling from Pennsylvania puts Trump within two of Clinton and he is within or just outside the margin of error (MOE) in Wisconsin, Colorado (where he leads in one poll) and Michigan in some older polls.
If these four states move into Trump's column his realistic Electoral College number would be a massive 323 to 215 margin.
New Hampshire is currently significantly outside the MOE but if Trump's trending accelerates it is conceivable that the states 4 votes as well as two further from Maine (Clinton would win the states 4th vote) would stretch Trump's margin to 327 to 211 almost equal to President Obama's 332 to 206 against Romney in 2012.
Monday, September 19, 2016
New York Times leftist "pundit' Nate Cohn wrote regarding Donald Trump's nomination that it
"came together in unexpected ways to produce a result that no one could have reasonably anticipated?"
He wrote this is a long somewhat explanatory column about his predictive failures "What I got wrong about Donald Trump
"We will never know just how wrong we were about Donald Trump"
It is unfair to all those who actually did predict Trump's triumph (linked below) to let Cohn's universal "nobody" pass by uncorrected. Here are just some of those who were not blinded by leftist bias. Most certainly Governor Sarah Palin who was the first major endorser of Trump, and yours truly who blogged for Trump from the start can be added to the list.
Video;Rep. Keith Ellison Predicts Trump as Nominee In July 2015; Panel Laughs Hysterically
Scott Adams also predicts Trump will beat Hillary Clinton in "a landslide."
Michael Moore Predicts Donald Trump Will ‘Absolutely’ Win GOP Nomination
Last year, I predicted the GOP would nominate Trump"
IJR Norm Ornstein
Saturday, September 17, 2016
First report of Governor Palin's "Hopey Changey" comment about President Obama
read the full article at LINK) From February 2010!
William McKinley campaigning from his front porch in 1896 (The railways offered excursion tickets to assist getting crowds to his Ohio home)
"A front porch campaign is a low-key electoral campaign used in American politics in which the candidate remains close to or at home to make speeches to supporters who come to visit. The candidate largely does not travel around or otherwise actively campaign. The successful presidential campaigns of James A. Garfield in 1880, Benjamin Harrison in 1888 andWilliam McKinley in 1896 are perhaps the best-known front porch campaigns.
McKinley's opposing candidate, William Jennings Bryan, gave over 600 speeches and traveled many miles all over the United States to campaign, but McKinley outdid this by spending about twice as much money campaigning. While McKinley was at his Canton, Ohio, home conducting his "front-porch campaign", Mark Hanna was out raising millions to help with the campaign."
Up until at least 1860 when Stephen Douglas made a long trip "to see my mother" stopping off at various locations to make (much ridiculed) speeches" it was considered "unseemly to actively campaign for the presidency "let the office and the high honor seek the man."
In 1896 William Jennings Bryan broke the mold (with the exception of Warren Harding's 1920 somewhat front porch campaign) with a cross country barnstorm the likes of which were not seen until Harry Truman's "back of the train" campaign. But, in general, presidential campaigners have used the mass meeting.
A huge stadium filled with raucous supporters was a time honored method of showing the media the strength of your support, getting your message out and energizing voters, particularly the base who would be most likely to turn out for such events.
Barack Obama was a master at this outreach especially to his young supporters who were so crucial to his Electoral College majorities which were run up in the heavily populous states of Florida,New York, California and Ohio.
There can be little doubt the optics of Donald Trump's mass rallies during the primary campaign did much to persuade Republican rank and file voters that the likes of Jeb Bush, whose event attendance was embarrassing, lacked the mass appeal that would be needed to take of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic machine.
But, surprisingly and uniquely in modern presidential campaign history, Clinton has eschewed even one attempt at a mass rally. Further, her campaign events have been, again remarkably, comparatively sparsely attended. There must be a Clinton team strategy behind this but whatever it is it seems, at least optics wise, to be of little value.
As a negative the contrast between Trump's massive rallies and Clinton's must signal to voters that the enthusiasm for her is, to say the least, lacking. It shows, unless they have been deliberately excluded, that young people have little interest in supporting her, at least as activists
.Further it at least raises the question as to whether she could fill a stadium and if her health and energy are up to make a filled stadium event work.
It may well be that 2016 marks a new watershed where all the fundraising for television advertising turns out to have been a waste of time and money. It may turn out that mass rallies are a thing of the past. But while Trump "free media" campaign appears to be working as the polls get closer Hillary's low profile campaigning appears to have no positives.
The media has completely ignored the contrast between Trump's meeting turnout and Clinton's, maybe they, and she will be proven right, but it might also turn out to be a disastrous mistake.
Millennials really don't like Hillary Clinton. Many of them say she is a corporate stooge and (almost) as bad as Donald Trump. If they stay home on Election Day, or vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, she has a very big problem. Two recent polls show that 30% of voters under thirty plan to vote for either Johnson or Stein. The ones who love Sanders' proposal for a $15/hr minimum wage would probably be quite surprised to learn that Libertarians want to repeal the minimum wage law and let the free market determine what people are paid, not the government.
So, how is the 68-year-old Clinton trying to win the kids back? She is sending in their favorites, the 67-year-old Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and the 74-year-old Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The duo are being sent on a tour of college campuses in Ohio to pitch Clinton's plan of making community college free and providing scholarships for needy students so no one graduates with debt. She doesn't want to have tuition at state schools be zero, because she thinks that Donald Trump's kids ought to be paying their own way.
The nationwide polls have tightened from the Democratic Convention mass hubris (some say hysteria) where the pundits anointed Hillary and assigned Trump to the losers lowest circle of Hell.
Such idiocy seems remarkable as even the most casual follower of presidential election is aware of the "convention bounce effect but the media is incorrigible both in their Clinton support and their disdain for the intelligence of the voting public.
The truth is that, as of this writing Trump is within two points in the head to head polling, and in the ascendancy, but, more importantly, he has passed Clinton in the Electoral College based on the most recent state polls.
All of this polling may have a major distortion the "enthusiasm effect" which most recently manifested itself in the "Brexit" election. In the U.K. referendum the pollsters had "Remain" winning and winning in part through the poll support of young voters.
One politician commented "anyone who relies on the turnout of young voters is a dead man" and he was correct, not only for Brexit but for the previous U.K. general election.
Young voters, when they are enthused and turn that enthusiasm into showing up at the polling booth can make a huge, winning difference as President Obama's elections proved.
It seems clear that millennials have little love and even less enthusiasm for Hillary. If the USC/LATimes tracking poll and even worse omen for Clinton is Trump actually leading her at his highest level among the 18-24 age group demographic;
If her polling support is based in any large part on these same people showing up Trump may win in an Electoral College landslide.
There can be little doubt that if the legion of Sanders supporters could have had their enthusiasm for him transferred to Hillary the votes which appear to be going to Johnson and Stein would be, perhaps in near entirely, be hers and consequently an easy run to election.
Sanders, and probably only slightly less, Senator Warren as her VP running mate would have seen an entirely different campaign with mass meetings, feet on the ground and mass enthusiasm.
Would either Sanders or Warren have accepted the VP slot? there is no way of knowing but if Clinton had pressed the matter hard and rallied Sanders or Warren's supporters to pressure them they may have succumbed.
Instead Clinton went for a staid "safe pair of hands" with Kaine which appears to have brought her nothing but just may have cost her the election.
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
Update September 20th; I asked 'where to from here" after the tracking polls showed a substantial rise for Trump post 9/11 "pneumonia & deplorables" the answer is, so far, a slow decline in Trump's aggregate lead but not the quick return to the norm of Trump and Clinton being 1-2 points apart and changing lead from time to time.
This is positive for Trump as if he can sustain an aggregate lead he will be well placed for the more important state polls to catch up to this "new normal" if that is what it is.
The picture is not entirely clear as UPI/C is lagging even further behind than normal. Give UPI/C's Clinton bent it is reasonable to expect they will have her 1-2 points ahead by their 9/20 poll but that will not drop the aggregate of the three polls below around +3 for Trump.
Although Trump peaked in the aggregate on 9/14 PPD and USC/LATimes are merging into the same at around +5 with his aggregate of the two polls running from +5.2 to +6.1. If Trump holds at that level it looks very good for him
The three tracking polls showed Trump's sharp rise post Hillary's "deplorables/9/11 "pneumonia" terrible media optics commenced on 9/12 as would be expected.
For the first time Trump led Clinton in all three polls, including a sharp jump in the UPI/C poll which has been the friendliest to Clinton. Trump's aggregate (in green) of 3.1 on the 12th was his highest since these polls commenced.
Trump reached +4 in the aggregate on the 14th and may exceed that for the 15th once UPI/C catches up (they run a day behind the other polls) but +4 to say +5 might be Trump's highest aggregate in this current cycle.
These tracking polls always lead the "one off" polls. Real Clear Politics aggregate average also shows a striking shift to Trump in the last week but just not enough to give him a lead-he is behind by 1 point.
The state polls lag even further behind but there too, where the left was crowing about a "Hillary electoral College landslide" weeks ago Trump can be shown to have actually not only passed Clinton but to have enough Electoral College votes to be elected president.
But where to from here? UPI/C has clearly dropped substantially but not quite yet enough to give Hillary her lead again ( Trump from +3.2 to +1.0) Trump's best pollster USC/LATimes has ticked down 0.2 and Clinton up 0.2 since yesterday.
These next few day will show, fascinatingly, whether Trump in an aggregate lead of around three points is the new norm, or the race will move back to where it has been since Hillary's post DNC euphoria faded-with both fluctuating within a point or so.
If Trump can sustain this current margin, more or less, then he stands to be considered the front-runner in the popular vote and if the state votes confirm it then he will be heavily favored to be president
Recent state polls in the crucial, for Trump, "Non-Romney states' i.e. those competitive states Trump needs to win to ensure an Electoral College victory give him just enough to pass the required 270 mark.
However only in some states is Trump ahead of Clinton in the aggregate of polls which is the best guarantee, if there be such a thing, of his winning the state. In the other states where he is ahead it is in a very recent poll and then by a small margin, usually inside the margin of error.
Normally pundits talk about a "coattail" effect" i.e. a popular presidential candidate assisting down ballot candidates to get over the finish line in the polling booth. 2016 appears to be standing that historical truth on its head.
Judging by almost all polls both Trump and Clinton have "unfavorables' of unique and historic proportions.Trump can take some solace perhaps in that this are actually improving whilst Hillary's worsen.
This and the perhaps unexpected strength of Republican senate candidates and the "enthusiasm gap" may actually improve Trumps chances of winning margins in the key states.
Here is how Republican senate candidates are faring compared to Trump's lead margins (or deficits)
North Carolina Burr +6 Trump + 3
Iowa Grassley + 17 Trump +8
Ohio Portman + 21 Trump +5
Georgia Isakson + 16 Trump +6
Florida Rubio + 11 Trump +3
Nevada Heck +3 Trump +2
Arizona McCain +19 Trump +4
New Hampshire Ayotte + 8 Trump -2
Pennsylvania Toomey +1 Trump -5