Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Astounding, Unprecedented State Polls For Trump Indicate Landslide

NBC/Survey Monkey national poll today is excellent for Donald Trump as it shows him slowly but steadily erasing Hillary's once substantial leads not only head to head but also in the voters perception of who will win in November.

New NBC poll participants Dem's 33% GOP 28% Indies 37% .May 8th Hillary +5 May 29th +2 Trump closing.

NBC poll participants Dem's 33% GOP 28% Indies 37% Expectations "Who will win"May 9 Hillary+8 May 20 +1 Significant result "perception is reality"

But it in the state polls where the really striking results have come.Bear in mind to that state polls lag the nationwide ones so these results presage an even better one for Trump down the line.

5/13 - 5/22

996 Likely Voters 

                                               Clinton     Trump

Clinton +10

In 2012 Romney lost New Hampshire by 5.5 points       46%  to  52%  

                                 New Jersey                 18 points        40%  to   58%

                                 California                     23 points         37%  to    60%

                                 Oregon                        12 points        42%  to   54%

When the Oregon poll came out yesterday I thought it was an outlier but these three new polls confirm the trend, Obviously if these results hold in November Trump would be looking like a landslide winner in the electoral college as the marginal states like Florida/Ohio/Pennsylvania would fall to him easily. Polls in those states are looked to with much interest.

Franklin Pierce-Herald poll shows tight NH race, trouble for Clinton      LINK

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are deadlocked in the swing state of New Hampshire, , a new Franklin Pierce University-Boston Herald poll reveals.

Clinton and Trump are both getting 44 percent of the vote in a general-election matchup yet just only a third of all voters have a favorable view of the two likely presidential nominees, according to the new poll.
The poll should cause some concern among Democrats who have counted on New Hampshire’s four electoral votes for the past three elections.

Clinton’s unpopularity in the Granite State is making the race a tossup in a state where Republicans now hold only one major statewide office.

Just 35 percent of likely New Hampshire voters rate the former secretary of state favorably while 61 percent say they have an unfavorable view of her, according to the Franklin Pierce-Herald poll.

If GOP Had Got Behind Palin Instead Of Romney They Wouldn't Be Sweating Trump

Palin didn't run in 2012 because she didn't have the money personally or from the big establishment financial backers. Instead the GOP establishment in their "wisdom" got behind Romney, a candidate so weak that he spent most of the primaries trying to head off Rick Santorum for goodness sake.

That Romney was such a poor candidate was proven by his selection of Paul Ryan who ran the most invisible vice-presidential campaign I have ever seen. Ryan suffered the embarrassment (as did all Republicans who watched it) by being mercilessly clobbered by Joe Biden in their one sided debate.

Romney went on to throw away his opening debate performance, or rather Obama's mysteriously weak performance, by running a listless and forgettable campaign bolstered by Karl Rove's poll mirages.

It is quite likely that Palin would have lost if she had received the GOP's backing as a sitting president is very difficult to defeat. But she would have fought a dogged campaign with energized voters which would have done the GOP a great favor. This was proven by her efforts on behalf of the Tea Party and the numerous candidates she endorsed and stumped for who owe their elections to her.

In such a scenario the world would be an utterly different place for the Republican establishment this year. There is little doubt that Romney would be the 2016 candidate, probably unopposed, as it would be "his turn" and the establishment and their media enablers would say "OK the conservatives had their turn and lost so it is now time for the traditional centrist approach and etc."

But they didn't, and they now have Trump and could have had Cruz.

If they hadn't been such elitist blockheads not only could they have avoided the 2012 disaster for their clique. If they had encouraged and supported Palin in 2015/6 and she announced a run,Trump would most likely not have run as he had clearly indicated his support for her. Her (crucial) endorsement of him and his ongoing public thanks to her clearly show as much.

A Palin run would have been indebted to the establishment machine and the financial backers and would not have the total independence that Trump has. Further Palin would have brought the conservative element unconditionally and obviously would have negated the Hillary "woman's card" nonsensical but obvious appeal to a segment of women.

There is only one group responsible for Romney's 2012 loss and Trump's 2016 rise and that is the shortsighted, elitist, arrogant Republican establishment whose disdainful and undercutting treatment of Palin has brought them to this well deserved place of submission to Trump.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Massive Move To Trump,Huge Hillary Fall In Formerly Safe And Marginal Democratic States

As Donald Trump moves into a virtual tie or lead, well within the margin of error, in head to head polling against Hillary Clinton the state polls, which usually lag the nationwide polls are starting to move to him as well.

North Carolina is a good example;

Trump's 4 point lead is a striking 6 point turnaround from March and the obvious conclusion is that the trendline to Trump points to a substantial improvement in North Carolina for Trump over what Romney got, and if that is translated into the entire country then Florida/Ohio/Virginia and even Pennsylvania are in play for Trump."

North Carolina was a marginal Romney win but what is unique in this polling season is the massive, there is no other word for it, drop in Hillary's vote and/or a concomitant rise in Trump's in Democratic strongholds.

In two polls for California in May (which don't entirely capture the full move to Trump via Republican consolidation) Hillary leads by either 12 or 14 points.

In 2012 President Obama won California by a massive 23 points. Trump is equaling Romney (and again this does nto reflect the full force of the movmeent to him yet) but Hillary has dropped between 8 and 11 points.

This is mirrored in New Jersey where the 2012 result was Obama 58% Romney 40% a 13 point decline for Hillary via Quinnipiac.

A tie in Virginia at 38% each (2012 Obama by 4 points. In crucial Ohio the RCP average is Hillary by 1.4 points (2012 Obama by 3 points)
and in Pennsylvania Clinton by 1 via Qinnipiac (2012 Obama by 5.5 points).

May is not predictive of November necessarily, especially in nationwide head to head polls ask President Dukakis, however such massive drop in Clinton's polling in safe and marginal Dem states must be a concern for the DNC.

Via StatesPoll.com the current state by state analysis has Trump leading in the Electoral College-which is all that matters in November. 

PPP Polling (Dem) Under-Reports Own Poll To Push Anti-Trump Narrative

Here is the report from the impartial Real Clear Politics polling analysis for North Carolina

And confirmed at ElectionProjection

But at PPP Polling's own site

"PPP's new North Carolina poll finds Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton 43-41"
Then the narrative;

If a 2 point advantage for Trump held through November, that would match Mitt Romney's margin of victory in 2012 in North Carolina. That's a trend we've found in a lot of our recent polling- the race is shaping up very similarly to how things went between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

There was so much talk earlier this year of Clinton winning some sort of historical landslide that expectations got out of whack and now fuel perceptions that she's doing really poorly, but the bottom line is she's pretty much where Obama was in an election that while relatively close in the popular vote ended up as an electoral college landslide."

The Trump 4 point lead is buried deep in the statistics (which RCP dug out) which of course utterly ruins PPP's narrative. The "talk of a Clinton historic landslide" is not covered off by advising that that was a media driven load of rubbish of course. But the most disingenuous aspect of PPP's bias, which confirms why FiveThirtyEight rates it so poorly is of course 
" Trump's 2 point lead represents a 4 point improvement from our March poll of the state, when Clinton was ahead by a couple points"

Trump's actual 4 point lead is a striking 6 point turnaround from March and the obviously left out conclusion is that the trendline to Trump points to a substantial improvement in North Carolina for Trump over what Romney got and if that is translated into the entire country then Florida/Ohio/Virginia and even Pennsylvania are in play for Trump.

Note the new Civitas Poll of North Carolina confirms the 4 point Trump lead. 

PPP Polling should lhave a warning"For entertainment and bias supporting purposes only"

Why Doesn't Hillary Condemn Rioters? Four Possible Reasons

UPDATE San Jose leftist riots;
See; "Rioting Clinton/Sanders Supporters Work Hard To Elect Trump"  LINK

"Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta condemned reports of violence on Twitter, writing, "Violence against supporters of any candidate has no place in this election."

But nothing from enabler Hillary herself
Posted after earlier leftist riots-San Jose affirms that the Clinton/Sanders faction has no interest in the rioters apart from enabling them.

Hillary Clinton was quick to condemn rioters-but what she determined as "Trump incited rioters". How she reached this conclusion when, clearly, the thugs in 1.Chicago caused so much disruption to public life that Trump's event had to be cancelled for fears for public safety is a mystery.

Certainly she's been spared having to condemn Trump supporters for rioting at her events, causing 2.ten thousand dollars damage to property during one riot alone, jumping on police cars and throwing rocks
at police.

But for someone running for president, whose role encompasses creating an atmosphere of peace and civility, Hillary is failing miserably in that aspect. Why would she not condemn these violent attacks on free speech and lawful assembly?  A number of possibilities arise.

1. She agrees with these activities and sees them as a normal leftist adjunct to her campaign, and sees the rioters as useful tools to promote her agenda. 

If that is the case it is certainly debatable whether this is a wise move tactically as history proved with the Democratic convention riots of 1968. One would think that middle America would be disgusted at what they are seeing and such terror, for that is what it is, 3.would redound against her.

Of course, if indeed she sees these riots as useful tactics it would be  terrible indictment of her character, or lack of it.

2. Hillary is not commenting on or condemning the rioters by calling on any of her supporters to desist because, by not tying her supporters to the riots in any way, it leaves open the suspicion that all of the rioters are Sanders supporters and her followers are above all such things.

If that is indeed the reason, the hypocrisy would be boundless as would the responsibility for all damage to property, life and limb, and free speech. The betrayal that decent Sanders supporters would, rightly, feel would be palpable as would their not voting for Hillary in November.

N.B. From "The Last Refuge;
MVW says:
Hillary is losing to Bernie. This her way of smearing Bernie in hopes of discrediting him. It also is an attempt to turn Trump supporters against Bernie supporters. She is an evil crooked force.
Don’t fall for it. This is Soros – Hillary mayhem."

3. Frankly she just doesn't care. One would hope that is not the case, but in absence of any condemnation whatsoever that is certainly a sad possibility. That her moral compass could be so warped, if that is indeed the case, would be shocking.

4. Hillary sees the rioters as hurting Trump in the polls and is keeping quiet about the riots because it good for her campaign. Again, if that is her thinking, then the lack of morals would be utterly repugnant. Further, every time there has been an anti-Trump riot his 3.polls went up and he won key primary races.

Perhaps there are other reasons for Clinton's puzzling silence, but in the absence of her commenting on these disgusting people and their terrible actions it is only fair and just to examine her stance in the light of this speculation.

Frankly, silence is an encouragement and an enabling for the rioters and stands as a condemnation of Hillary Clinton. Any further such activities, especially if they result in damage to life and property are on her until she speaks up and demands they stop.


Hillary Clinton condemns Donald Trump after protests shut down Chicago rally


Relax: Albuquerque’s police horses are fine; $10,000 in damage done to convention center


3. Who Will Work Hardest To Elect Trump? The Rioting Clinton/Sanders Supporters.  LINK

Monday, May 23, 2016

Indie Sanders Run; Winning Only Vermont Could Decide The Election

Bernie Sanders is doing everything he can to keep his campaign going and apparently to incite divisions in the Democratic party. Surely it is unprecedented for a major candidate to call for the Chair of the party to be overthrown!

His followers, especially at the "progressive" blogs sensing approaching doom, are becoming more vociferous about not voting for Hillary in November.

Unlike the 2008 "PUMA's who said they would not vote for Obama after Hillary lost, but did, it may well be that the new leftists who Sanders has brought into the primary campaigns may very well not vote for Hillary. If polls are any guide a significant number (
twenty percent) may vote for Trump instead.

But, and given the apparently irascible nature of Sanders if he feels badly done by, and even a dispassionate observer has to have some degree of empathy for him as far as his complaints of "funny business" in the primaries (
Nevada etc) and the DNC stacking the game against him, if he did decide to throw in the towel and go Independent, the outcome might be devastating for Hillary.

It may be that the  DNC's cunning plan of having a 
limited number of debates, and having them at the worst possible time, may backfire on them by driving a genuine outsider even further outside, in fact right outside the tent whose flaps he only recently came in by. 

It hardly seems credible that an independent Sanders run could propel him into the White House on a surge of "progressive populism" but there is no doubt he could make a significant run. He has a mass of supporters including the "Kossite" progressives at Daily Kos and other such sites. 

Money would also appear to not be a concern as Sanders has gone the grassroots way, as befits a socialist, having raised millions in small donations.

In Electoral College terms, which is, in the end, all that matters, (who wins the popular vote is secondary-see Gore.Al) how might an Independent run by Sanders affect the outcome. The answer is, rather surprisingly, that if Sanders only won his home state of Vermont with its measly three electoral votes, that could, very reasonably, give the election to the GOP. Let's look at the map

This outcome is obviously very possible. The difference for the GOP from 2012 is that Florida, Virginia and Ohio are in their column. For all practical purposes if Florida goes for Hillary then there is no need for any further discussion-that would be that. Even with Florida in the GOP column a path to an electoral college majority without Ohio seems dubious. Without Virginia  the GOP would have to pick up Pennsylvania or Colorado/Iowa/Nevada, a challenge but doable. 

The map above is basically the G.W. Bush Map of 2004 with Bush having won the three "doable"states. The difference with this map is Sanders winning Vermont which would leave Hillary 1 Electoral College vote short of the 270 required.

Then the election would be thrown into the (presumable Republican state delegation majority-see map below) House which would choose between the top three candidates (I set out the constitutional procedure also below). At that point, a states one person delegation, i.e. the Congressman from Vermont, could have the final say on who would be president. If Sanders was so upset with the DNC that he instructed Vermont's one person caucus to cast their vote for the GOP (if the vote was 25 GOP to 24 Dem) the GOP candidate would win 26 to 24.

However, the most likely resolution would be a GOP caucus dominated House would choose the GOP presidential candidate on the first ballot.

If by swearing in day a tie had not been resolved the person the Senate had chosen as vice-president, would become president. What the balance of the Senate might be after November 2016 is still a mystery so how this scenario might play out is also a mystery. But, if the GOP held the Senate then it would be in their hands to chose the GOP's vice-presidential candidate who would become president.

"if by the first Monday following the second Wednesday in March 2016, as the constitution requires, there is no President, the Senate's choice of Vice-President will take over-"

A quick glance at the map shows how this situation might be avoided altogether. If, as seems very likely, Sanders pulled a "Nader" and took enough votes from Clinton in New Hampshire (as happened to Gore in 2000) then the Republican would have 270 Electoral College votes and be elected. 

It would be beyond amusing if it turned out that, rather than the GOP with their Trump concerns, it eventuated that Sanders was the wild card that cost Hillary her second chance of being president-and it would be a self-inflicted wound.


The constitution is very clear (Article 12) on the matter. 

Under the constitution, the GOP standard bearer, the Dem, and the third party candidate would be the candidates the House would decide from. (presuming no other candidate had any electoral college votes. If they did they would be eliminated from the balloting as only the top three go through for consideration)

"Every state would have one vote based  on the result of each states party representation. Thus, for example New York’s one vote would go to the Dem, and Wyoming’s one vote would go to the Republican. 
It would be unlikely that the GOP would lose control of the House and the state caucus delegations in the 2016 Congressional elections, thus, on the most recent analysis, the GOP would have a majority of the 50 states votes based on caucus outcomes when balloting."

This scenario played out before. In the election of 1824 Andrew Jackson finished first with more electoral votes than John Quincy Adams, William Crawford came third and Henry Clay fourth. With Clay eliminated he threw the support of his states to Adams, who was duly elected, based on the fact of his having the majority of states.

Friday, May 20, 2016

Jon Huntsman For Vice-President? Six Key Reasons Why

Ambassador Jon Huntsman.jpg

Trump/Huntsman 2016? A man who quite possibly gave up his best chance to be president by honorably answering President Obama's call to serve his country as Ambassador to China would, presumably, also be open to serving America again as Donald Trump's running mate and then as vice-president.

Here are six major reasons why Huntsman could be considered as an ideal running mate for Donald Trump and the GOP for 2016;

1.Foreign Policy Experience

As a former Ambassador to China, Huntsman would bring an unquestioned and highly regarded foreign policy experience to support Trump in this crucial area. Since a major part of Trump's policy pronouncements focused on a new, fairer to America and it's workers relationship with China, Huntsman's connections with senior Chinese policy makers adds experience and realism to Trump's 

2. Experience In Government.

Huntsman was a *successful prudent and **popular governor. He appears to have no enemies in Congress and might be the ideal person Trump described in his VP's credentials wish list.

“The main quality that you want is somebody that can be a great president. If something happens to you… that’s gotta be number one,” he said. “And then I would want somebody that could help me with government. Most likely that would be a political person. I’m business and I’m very good at what I do… [but] I’m also very, very political.”
In other words, Trump — who has generally billed himself as a “political outsider” of sorts — wants a running mate who is very much (or can easily become) a part of the political machine in Washington, D.C. Yes, he’s a businessman and not a politician, though he reminded his audience that he is “very, very political,” but he admitted that a savvy partner would prove quite helpful for his goals if and when he reaches the White House.
“I do want somebody that’s political, because I want to get lots of great legislation we all want passed,” he concluded. “We’re going to probably choose somebody that’s somewhat political

3. Gravitas.

Huntsman is the one Republican the ***Democratic party and the liberal media have continually touted as "the one we fear." They describe him (as a foil to attack some other Republican) as "the only sane, moderate electable Republican." For those forces to then turn around and attack the man that President Obama chose (with, presumably, no Democrat up to the job) as the best equipped to handle the vital role as Ambassador to China would look downright silly.

4. Voter Appeal.

Huntsman is a Mormon, this might be of value electorally in shoring up Utah, which Trump lost substantially in the primary, as well as assisting in New Mexico and the crucial swing state of Colorado. On the other hand, those Republicans who did not vote for Romney as president might not be concerned about voting for a Mormon as vice-president and could be brought back into the GOP's fold for 2016.

5. Compatibility with Trump

Huntsman played no part in the primary campaign, least of all in the "Never Trump" movement, which seems to fit his character. Thus there are no negative 'sound bites" by Huntsman that the opposition could use against Trump. Once it seemed certain that Trump would be the nominee Huntsman was among the first to endorse him in that capacity.

6. Conservative Bona Fides.

Huntsman was perceived as 'too centrist" for the base in his 2012 presidential tilt, but his absolute ****right to life principles and *****family man image and lifestyle would provide a surety and counterweight for those who are hesitant to about Trump in those areas. 

Huntsman would set aside any notion of Trump "pandering to women" by choosing a female running mate, and may have a positive influence on women who are hesitant because of those aspects and who would view his choice as a dedication to country and principles above faction and gender for gender's sake.

Huntsman on immigration is a mixed bag, but the "fence" aspect cancels out the citizenship for future illegals. 

"as an American, the thought of a fence to some extent repulses me ... but the situation is such that I don't think we have a choice." Huntsman supported the 
DREAM Act which proposed a path to citizenship for young people brought to the United States by their parents illegally.

Whether Huntsman's views in this area and same-sex marriage are enough to negate all the six major points would be for Trump to decide, if he were so inclined to consider Huntsman. 

Whether these views would make fewer Republican, Independent and "Sanders' refugees" to support Trump than would support him is also a matter of debate. I personally don't think it would. At the end of the day it is the president who gets policy done not the Veep and a Huntsman vice-presidential candidacy could, on balance, be a substantial voting plus.

N.B. A team player

Hockey Moms Of The World Unite! Jon Huntsman Introduces Sarah Palin


From Wikipedia

Utah was named the best managed state by the Pew Center on the States. Following his term as governor, Utah was also named a top 3 state to do business in

**  In November 2004, Huntsman was elected governor with 58% of the vote. In 2008, Huntsman won re-election with 77.7% of the vote, 
Huntsman maintained high approval ratings as Governor of Utah, reaching 90% approval 

*** On November 20, 2012, Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina suggested that the Obama campaign believed Huntsman would have been a particularly difficult candidate to face in the general election. Messina said that the campaign was "honest about our concerns about Huntsman" and that Huntsman "would have been a very tough candidate.

**** As the Governor of Utah, Huntsman signed numerous bills restricting abortion.
***** Huntsman has eight brothers and sisters, and he and his wife, Mary Kaye, have seven children: Mary Anne (b. 1985), Abigail (b. 1986), Elizabeth ("Liddy"; b. 1988), Jon III (b. 1990), William (b. 1993), Gracie Mei (b. 1999; adopted from China), and Asha Bharati (b. 2006; adopted from India).

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Besides Trump, Of 17 GOP Candidates-Two Other Winners

Obviously from the, ridiculously large field of 
17 GOP candidates, Donald Trump is the winner.
By definition the other 16 are losers but two showed themselves to be smarter than the other 14 and, in their own way are winners too.

Actually to refine this further there are losers, utter losers and to coin a new term (which applies probably only to politics) "winning losers."

It appears this unprecedented primary season has added even another new political term "sore loser-losers." In that category can be included Jeb Bush, and Ted Cruz and his "vice-president" of nine days Carly Fiorina. Bush did succeed however in blowing the incredible sum of one hundred million dollars and any further career he might have had with his quixotic run. 

He has alienated the entire base and his erstwhile donors would, surely, never send him a plug nickel again. Cruz is persona non grata with the triumphant Trump supporters and the establishment figures who used him as a last desperate firewall against Trump have no further use for him. 

"Splendid isolation" appears to be his future for the foreseeable future. The least productive speculation would be to consider Fiorina's prospects, dignified silence is probably a kindness.

Cruz is not an utter loser as he still has his senate seat and announced he will run for reelection which he probably would succeed at. The utter losers include the likes of Jindal who is term limited and after his vicious attacks on Trump has nowhere to go despite his now luke-warm endorsement.

As for Pataki, Gilmore Santorum, well really, there's nothing to be said. None endorsed Trump and are history.

The others have seats in Congress or are media pundits. Some have lately endorsed Trump or didn't really attack him so might have cabinet prospects, but two stand out as "winning losers."

Chris Christie took down Rubio at a vital time just prior to New Hampshire, possibly finishing his own prospects at the same time. Seeing the writing on the wall he was the first major figure afte Palin, and an establishment one to boot, to strongly endorse Trump. His reward is he is now a key figure in Trump's campaign, will undoubtedly have a major role at the convention and probably a key cabinet post.

So to for Ben Carson, an endorsement of Trump a major campaign role and, should he wish it, a cabinet post or high profile appointment.

What this shows is that both men are highly astute and possess strong political skills. It also shows that media criticism, Blog ridicule, television pundit criticism, late night television show digs mean absolutely nothing. If the decision is right, and the person so deciding is astute and knows they can weather such attacks because they are meaningless when the the political payoff comes.

Donald Trump has a strong trait of loyalty, the eventual winners besides him Christie, Carson and Palin will have the last laugh.