TRUMP THE RACIST We have yet more information on how Trump is driving Hispanic turnout, especially in swing states like Nevada and Florida. In Nevada, longtime political analyst Jon Ralston details how Harry Reid's turnout machine is delivering huge numbers of Hispanics to the polls, what he calls the "final nail in Trump's Nevada coffin": http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...nton-trump-early-vote-latinos-214426?lo=ap_c1 Normally, get-out-the-vote operations only matter at the margins. If a losing campaign starts talking about how its ground game is going to turn things around, it's a sure sign it knows it is losing. But this year is different. The "GOTV only matters at the margins" argument depends on the assumption that both sides have a ground game. In this election, Clinton has a huge and well-organized ground game, and the Republicans barely have one at all. Further, GOTV is designed to get your low-propensity voters to the polls. This is usually a major issue for Democrats, who have way more low-propensity voters. Traditionally, Republicans have had less need to rely on low-turnout voters. But this year, Trump's base is built on white men without college degrees -- which is a low-turnout group. So GOTV is more important than normal for the GOP this year -- and they simply don't have the operation in place. The bottom line numbers from Ralston: And in Nevada, early voting usually tells the tale: Meanwhile, in Florida, 170,000 more Hispanics have already voted than voted in the ENTIRE 2012 election there. Obama won the state by 71,000 votes -- meaning enough NEW Hispanic votes have been cast to more than double that margin of victory. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/latino-vote-surge-donald-trump-campaign-230804 The fact that many of these Hispanics are first-time voters is important in another way: people who have never voted before usually don't make it through the likely-voter screens used by pollsters. Since nearly all polls are using likely-voter screens at this point in the race, that means the polls likely underestimate Hispanic turnout. There may well be some counter-balancing effect due to higher turnout among Trump's core supporters -- who, as I noted above, are also low-propensity voters, and thus also more likely to be screened out of many polls. But in terms of sheer numbers, the data suggests that polls are understating Clinton's support. The New York Times has a detailed look at the Clinton campaign's massive outreach to Hispanics. For instance, they targeted Latina women to use their social networks to get people to support Hillary and get to the polls to vote. Trump's outreach efforts have been essentially nonexistent, leaving only his anti-immigrant and anti-Mexican comments to represent him -- which, obviously, doesn't play well. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/fear-of-donald-trump-helps-democrats-mobilize-hispanics.html WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE In response to reports that an early-voting location experiencing long lines stayed open so that everyone who was in line at closing time could vote -- a standard, common, bipartisan practice -- the head of Nevada's GOP managed to invoke both naked racism and implications of rigged voting: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/donald-trump-michael-mcdonald-nevada/ TRUMP THE UNDERMINER OF DEMOCRACY After McDonald spoke, Trump took the stage and used the polling place as an example of a "rigged" election -- as if following longstanding practice, and allowing people to vote, is "rigging" anything. And being Trump, he also threw in a completely baseless lie about "busing in Democratic voters." Trump is still getting some full-throated (if loopy and incoherent) support from the dumbass wing of the GOP. Sarah Palin weighed in from Michigan, saying "polls are for strippers": http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/sar...n-on-tuesday-because-polls-are-for-strippers/ TRUMP THE HYPOCRITE After Jay Z performed a profanity-laced concert at a Clinton get-out-the-vote rally, Trump complained about the singer's language, and mused that he himself didn't have a guitar to draw crowds to his rallies. And, being Trump, he also tossed in a baseless lie about people leaving Clinton's event because of Jay Z's language. Problem is, he did this right after noted nutbag Ted Nugent played a half-hour concert laced with profanities and crotch-grabbing. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...zs-profanity-after-nugent-gropes-himself.html Nugent was Trump's warm-up act. So Trump made his remarks on the very same stage Nugent performed on, just minutes after Nugent finished. TRUMP THE LIAR At that same rally in Reno, Trump was rushed off stage at one point after someone in the audience falsely shouted "gun!" It was quickly determined to be a false alarm, and Trump returned to the stage and finished his speech. That didn't stop Trump and his campaign from talking about the "assassination attempt": http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/6/13540206/donald-trump-assassination-attempt And then Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway tried to extend the lie: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/kellyanne-conway-trump-secret-service-assassination-attempt/ Get that? The Trump camp completely lies about something -- and Conway claims to be amazed that the media is asking her why her campaign is lying. In the same interview, she refused to concede that the poll staying open late in Nevada -- which I discuss above -- was completely normal, trying to imply that there might be wrongdoing involved. Jake Tapper was having none of it, and Conway ended up looking completely idiotic. TRUMP THE MAN-CHILD The secret of Trump's success in the last two weeks? He has mostly shut up. And the secret to him shutting up? His aides took away his Twitter access. No, seriously. I'm not making this up. Trump has such poor impulse control that his campaign is having to treat him like a three-year-old. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/donald-trump-presidential-race.html?_r=0 THE POLLS The RCP average shows Clinton ahead by 2.5% (two-way) and 2.7% (four-way): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html The RCP Electoral Vote map has Clinton at 203 votes (without tossups) and 301 votes with tossups included. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ctions_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html FiveThirtyEight gives Clinton between a 65.5% and 65.9% chance of winning: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a 49.9% chance of taking the Senate -- the first time they haven't been favored in months. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast And it being the day before the election, a quick roundup of other prediction analyses: The Princeton Election Consortium gives Clinton a 99% chance of winning, and Democrats a 79% chance of taking the Senate: http://election.princeton.edu/ The Huffington Post's Pollster model gives Clinton a 98.1% chance of winning, and Democrats a 67% chance of taking the Senate: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/senate The New York Times' Upshot model gives Clinton an 84% chance of winning, and Democrats a 56% chance of taking the Senate: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/senate-election-forecast.html Among full-time political analysts, Clinton is predicted to be the winner, with an EV count of between 278 and 323: http://www.270towin.com/maps/the-cook-political-report http://www.270towin.com/maps/crystal-ball-electoral-college-ratings http://www.270towin.com/maps/rothenberg-gonzales-political-report-ratings Various prediction markets give Clinton's chances at anywhere from 74% to 92%: https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres16_quotes.html https://betting.betfair.com/politic...mp-look-with-three-days-to-go-051116-171.html https://electionbettingodds.com/ https://www.predictit.org/market/1234/who-will-win-the-2016-us-presidential-election http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner http://www.cnn.com/specials/politics/predict
Another excellent summary, Rayti. What is remarkable that the deplorables push Trump as a successful businessman and manager (never mind that the last Republican "successful businessman" they put in office left office with the economy tanking straight for a depression), yet his management of his campaign has been the worst we've seen in decades.
TRUMP THE LIAR Fittingly, Trump's final ad is dishonest. And not just in terms of claims about Hillary. https://theintercept.com/liveblogs/...asses-off-footage-migrants-hungary-scene-u-s/ TRUMP THE ANTI-SEMITE The ad also repeats some of the anti-Semitic terms and images that Trump has used previously: A congenital liar who uses thinly veiled racial appeals. Who wouldn't want a guy like that as president?
Just a reminder: this isn't even the first time Trump has lied about a near death experience for attention. https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkacz...e-three-biogra?utm_term=.acZXl19ZY#.phzxPrzqQ His fans will no doubt react to this the same way they reacted to Hillary's sniper fire lie. Right? Right?
TRUMP THE WINNER You boys and girls will like this one -- 2 minute read -- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...onald-trump-will-win-artificial-a7384671.html "The New York businessman with a penchant for celebrity television may suddenly find himself in love with artificial intelligence developed in India. The polls and simulations that involve the skills and insight of human beings suggest Donald Trump could be heading for something of a pasting. But an artificial intelligence (AI) system developed in Mumbai, and which correctly predicted the last three US presidential elections, puts the Republican nominee ahead of his rival Hillary Clinton in the battle to secure the keys to the White House. MogIA was developed by Sanjiv Rai, the founder of Indian start-up Genic.ai. It has taken 20 million data points from public platforms such as Google, Facebook and Twitter and analysed the information to create predictions, CNBC reported." .
Sure, and then there's this professor who claims his model has correctly predicted every presidential election since 1984, and shows Trump will win in a landslide: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ns-correctly-is-doubling-down-on-a-trump-win/ The two things these stories have in common: we never heard of either of them until this year, even though they've supposedly been predicting elections for years. A lot of times, people will come up with a model that seems to predict past elections, and then they will make predictions about future elections based on that model. But more often than not, those predictions will be wrong -- because there was something "overfitted" in the model. For instance, you could do a model based on every past election, and rightly conclude that every presidential election has been won by a man. And thus you could reasonably conclude that all future elections will be won by men. That's ridiculous, of course -- it's an example of correlation without causation, or even false correlation (seeing a correlation that isn't actually there). But it's what can happen when you focus on the wrong factors. Things you think are causative -- or even meaningfully correlated -- turn out not to be. So I take all these magically accurate prediction methods that suddenly pop up in every election with a grain of salt. I ESPECIALLY take them with a grain of salt in this election, which features two non-standard candidates that throw nearly all the assumptions such predictions are based on out the window.
I'll tell you what is magic. That is 7 day rolling average "polls" that move many percentage points in a few days like what you've seen here in the past week or so. Trump -12 to Trump -4. .
Er ... most polls are three-day averages, not seven-day averages. So I'm not sure what's "magic" about it. You seem to be deflecting to an irrelevancy.
TRUMP THE UNIFIER Ana Navarro, a Republican who was the national Hispanic campaign chair for John McCain, is voting for Hillary Clinton -- or more accurately, against Donald Trump: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/opinions/navarro-republican-voting-for-clinton/ And she lives in Florida.
Today in Trump: He won the Presidency of the USA. Kinda renders all the past month's worth of wannabe non-journalism kinda...pointless, eh?
Not at all. That doesn't make any sense. It sucks that he won. It doesn't make the last month a waste of time.
The smear campaign of the left was thoroughly rejected. Americans around the country are letting out a collective sigh of relief.
Considering that Hillary looks to have won the popular vote, I'd be more cautious about claims of what "Americans" did.
So, who cares. You guys got TRAINED in the electoral.. You know that thing we've been following the whole year.... If Trump had to win the electoral and popular vote he probably woulda done that too... I'm just glad people like you are OUT of power. Republican unilateral control of congress. You can keep crying racism while we fix the country.... ENJOY
We got "trained"? What does that even mean? Trump won the Electoral College, so he wins the presidency. But that doesn't change the fact that more Americans supported Clinton than Trump. Which undercuts sweeping claims about "Americans" based on Trump's win. LOL. What? *Shrug.* Whatever. I'm an adult, both in age and temperament -- unlike many Trump supporters. I can handle disappointment in a mature way. I think Trump will be a disaster, and fail to deliver pretty much any actual fixes to the problems that animated his non-racist supporters. I think you will be highly disappointed by him. I think his reflexive lying, massive conflicts of interest (thanks to his business interests), lack of transparency, and short attention span will harm us in ways large and small. But unlike Trump supporters, I don't cry "rigged" just because my candidate lost. I don't pretend he is not legitimately elected, and swear to block every single thing he does. And I have faith that our federal system and separation of powers will limit the damage he can do. For instance, I expect him to take to executive orders the way a junkie takes to heroin -- it suits his style. I also expect many of those orders to be challenged in court, because they will ludicrously overreach. I expect even a GOP Congress to serve as at least a modest check on his authoritarian inclinations. And I look ahead. If Trump remains Trump, I would expect a Democratic wave in 2018 -- for both historical and Trump-specific reasons. And in 2020, I would also expect conditions to favor the Democrat. Trump may not run again, and unless he surprises everyone, he will have damaged the GOP brand and himself similar to the way George Bush did in his second term. Regardless of when it happens, the pendulum will inevitably swing back. It always does. In terms of this specific moment in time, the overall demographic trends cited in this election remains valid -- the country is getting more diverse, not less. Trump managed to run up the blue-collar white vote, which I think will turn out to be the big piece of information that the polls missed -- low-propensity white voters turned out in unusually large numbers for Trump. But some of that ability to drive turnout is probably unique to Trump, and to this cycle. For instance, I've said all along that Hillary was a weak candidate. Given two unpopular candidates -- one known, one more of a wild card -- it appears voters decided to take a chance on the wild card. But in 2020, Trump won't be a wild card anymore. He will be much more of a known quantity. And given all we know about Trump, I think a referendum on his first term will go badly for him. Plus, I live in Minnesota, which stayed sane and supported Hillary. We have a GOP legislature, but a Democratic governor. So I expect to be at least partly shielded from whatever crap Trump pulls. Score one for federalism.
Trump is easily favored in the 2020. He has been given a mandate from the people, likely 2-4 years of straight reformation and securing SCOTUS. I suspect his pro-American idealism will sit more well with Americans, hardening his base. Economically he's going to get this country going. We are going to become an energy powerhouse. We may see our first real rise in wages since the 90s. ACA is gone, too. Taxes will be lowered, and money sitting on the sidelines will finally be fed back through economy. 2024 is when democrats could gain control but that will be a good election.
Okay. Whatever you say. How do you claim a mandate when MORE people voted for Clinton? You just used "Trump" and "idealism" in the same sentence. You lose. And LOL at the idea that any major presidential candidate ISN'T "pro-American". I don't know if you noticed, but GDP, employment and other economic measures are doing quite well already. The economy doesn't need to "get going again". It's already going. If you mean through fracking and coal, you are thinking very, very short-term. If you mean through our continued build-out of sustainable, non-polluting energy sources, then that's already underway and Trump has nothing to do with it. #1, LOL at the idea that trying the same "tax cuts for the rich" strategy that has failed repeatedly before will somehow magically work this time. Especially because that will just make the main cause of wage stagnation -- income inequality -- even worse. #2, real wages are starting to rise right now, thanks to the fact that we are close to full employment. Again, nothing to do with Trump. http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/25/news/economy/us-wages-ceos-talking-about-raises/ I look forward to Trump trying to take health insurance away from millions of people. That will certainly help him in 2018 and 2020. And the deficit will explode. And Trump will walk away with a personal $4 billion windfall. We shall see. I rather doubt we will have to wait that long, for the reasons stated.
A majority of Americans voted for Clinton. Not sure how that can be considered a mandate from the people to Trump.
Again all of you lefties were throwing the electoral college in every ones face for a while quite gleefully. Trump sweeps the swing states using your preferred system and that's not a mandate? What a bunch of sore losing jokers you are. With ignorant arrogant supporters like you guys? I'm quite confident for 2020 provided he does one thing. Gets results.
