With the vote tallies coming in, it's looking fairly close between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Scott Adams is still tweeting that Trump will win in a landslide, but Hillary, though behind, seems to be doggedly pursuing him in the numbers. I'm just not seeing a landslide, folks—keeping in mind that I'm defining a landslide as 75% of the electoral votes or more, as per how landslides typically go in US elections. The 1984 Reagan victory was the mother of all landslides, with Reagan garnering 97.6% of electoral votes.
The New York Times has an electoral map to help desperate Americans visualize what's going on. That map isn't updating nearly as fast as the maps and charts being shown on TV networks, but its very slowness is helping it to avoid the trap of prematurely calling the race for either candidate (as ABC News and CNN have been doing, hilariously enough). Right now, the NYT is giving Trump a greater-than-95-percent chance of victory. He's won, or is winning, a surprising number of battleground states, which puts the lie to the liberal claim that Trump didn't have much of a "ground game." He's also probably being aided by the "shy Tory" phenomenon, i.e., pro-Trump voters who quietly vote for him without announcing their intentions to friends and/or pollsters.
Anyway, a Trump victory is looking fairly likely, but it won't be a landslide. I had hoped to make a bet with someone about that, but we never settled on the terms for the bet. I would have won: my own side of the bet was simply "no Trump landslide," i.e., Trump could lose, or he could win, but only by a modest margin. Ah, well.
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
it's not going to be a landslide
15 comments:
READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING!
All comments are subject to approval before they are published, so they will not appear immediately. Comments should be civil, relevant, and substantive. Anonymous comments are not allowed and will be unceremoniously deleted. For more on my comments policy, please see this entry on my other blog.
AND A NEW RULE (per this post): comments critical of Trump's lying must include criticism of Biden's or Kamala's or some prominent leftie's lying on a one-for-one basis! Failure to be balanced means your comment will not be published.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As I correctly predicted in early August, Trump has won the race for the presidency in an unprecedented upset over the establishment candidate. As I write, the New York Times has him defeating Hillary Clinton by 72 electoral college votes (305 vs. 233). I will address the issue of whether or not his win constitutes a "landslide," but first let me explain why my basic analysis was on target.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Trump is an incredibly savvy businessman and he did essential market research before launching his campaign (there were articles about this if you knew where to look). His pro-worker, anti-war and anti-globalist message resonated throughout the populace, and was extremely popular for a reason: Because he had actually listened to the people and given them what they wanted. (Some dismiss such an approach as "populism," but isn't representing the interests of the people what democracy is all about?) Moreover, he is a master of media manipulation, with decades of experience in the maelstrom of the NYC tabloid world, and he was able to dominate headlines throughout the year, as well use the Internet to circumvent the traditional gatekeepers in the corporate MSM.
On the other hand, Clinton is probably the most corrupt candidate to have ever run for the presidency, and while her cynical leveraging of identity politics helped shore up support among the traditional "liberal" base, her overall message was just terrible: A great majority of voters recognized that she is an out-of-touch elitist who is pro-Wall $treet rather than pro-worker, and far too eager and willing to launch wars and invade other countries. The American people are tired of useless foreign wars and have been hurting economically for some time now. Her underlying message just plain sucked, despite all the "good feelings" she may have elicited by virtue of having boobs and a vagina. And when nearly a hundred million workers have dropped out of the U.S. labor force, getting behind the "feminist" program doesn't really put food on the table for most of those people, does it?
Continued below
Scott,
ReplyDeleteI'm not seeing the 305-233 stat. When I go to the NYT site here, I currently see 279-218, with a fluctuating projection (if you scroll down) of 305-307 electoral votes for Trump. Are you looking at a different page? I have a feeling the tally's going to reach the 305 mark in a few hours, but from what I see right now, it's not there yet.
Continued from above
ReplyDeleteAs for my prediction that Trump would win in a landslide, there are several mitigating factors that must be considered. I do think that your figure of 75% is somewhat arbitrary, but still believe that he could have gotten there if the entire political, media and academic establishment hadn't been united against him. I do believe that the election was rigged against him in the following ways:
1. Virtually the entire MSM viciously lied and smeared him on a daily basis for well over a year, and completely abandoned any attempt to cover the election fairly and impartially. Indeed, they openly boasted of their shameless partisanship, and as a result the Fourth Estate went completely AWOL during this election cycle. When the entire media establishment is operating essentially as the propaganda arm of a particular candidate, then the system is indeed rigged.
2. Not only did Trump have to fight against the Democratic Party, but he also had to fend off repeated attacks, undermining and betrayals from the GOP. He won the Republican Party nomination fair and square, and yet many of the neocons and neoliberals in the GOP refused to line up behind him (the notorious "Never Trumpers"). This itself constituted a significant drag on his campaign, and probably hurt his overall numbers as well.
3. President Obama illegally campaigned for Clinton at U.S. taxpayer expense, and corrupted the Department of Justice in both July and November to ensure that she was not indicted for her illegal private email server. (It is also clear that the FBI dragged its heels while investigating the Clinton Foundation, which as WikiLeaks has proven broke the law repeatedly.) Moreover, there have been literally dozens of stories of the Democratic Party engaging in voting fraud, and in several instances Obama himself has been implicated. Again, yet more evidence that the system is "rigged," as Trump has argued repeatedly, which is to say that if the Obama administration had not meddled in the election in numerous ways, Trump's numbers would have been even higher (certainly his support in the polls had been skyrocketing until FBI Director Comey absurdly claimed on Sunday there was "nothing to see" in the 650,000 emails obtained on Anthony Weiner's laptop, as if they could have gone through them all in just a week or so.)
4. There are widespread fears of voting machines operated by the company Smartmatic being rigged in favor of Clinton, since it is connected to notorious globalist and Clinton-backer George Soros. Indeed, many Trump voters have reported that their selection was switched to "Clinton" on computer screens in voting booths, and we have no idea if tallies have been subsequently modified. In short, between proven voting fraud on the part of the DNC and plausible allegations of voting-machine rigging, Trump may have lost millions of additional votes and consequently lost a number of states that went into the column for Clinton.
Continued below
Dude, you broke up my post!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, here's what you're looking for.
It's fluctuating in real time, and even has Trump as high as 310 at times.
Whoops: I didn't provide a link in my previous comment. Here you go.
ReplyDeleteYeah, yeah—I'm rude like that. Sue me.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I've pointed peeps on Twitter to your above analysis. Expect some love and some hate to come your way.
So we've provided each other the same link. Heh.
ReplyDeleteContinued from above
ReplyDeleteThere are other factors, such as Internet giants openly favoring Clinton (for example, numerous Trump supporters being banned by Twitter, or Google skewing search results and prompts). And yesterday 4chan and Reddit, both of which have been bastions of Trump support, went completely offline for some unexplained reason. And then there is the "structural rigging" that has been effected by the Democratic Party, both with the passage of the Hart–Celler Act in 1965 and its embrace of "Open Borders" in recent years, which has ensured that tens of millions of immigrants from the developing world, most of whom vote for the Democratic Party, have altered the demographics of the U.S. radically and in ways that are fundamentally opposed to the Republican Party.
In any case, despite all these obstacles, and effectively taking on the entire establishment, Trump has managed to achieve what everyone must at least concede was a very ballsy and well-fought victory. Of course, all the pollsters and pundits are now claiming to be "shocked" by Trump's upset, but anyone who was paying attention knew that they, too, were simply agents of the Democratic Party propaganda machine themselves, and not at all to be trusted. I do believe that America has dodged a bullet by keeping Krooked Killary and Bubba Bill from returning to the White House, and look forward to seeing what our next president manages to get accomplished come next January.
The link you give seems to be confirmed state wins, not the final projected result. Obviously, 279 + 218 = 497, which still leaves 41 electoral college votes outstanding.
ReplyDeleteExpect some love and some hate to come your way.
At this point, I only respect the opinion of American patriots on this particular subject. Anyone who "hates" my analysis most likely does not have the best interests of my nation at heart, so as far as I'm concerned they're pretty much irrelevant.
Right: we're linking to essentially the same page, but to different tabs on that page. My link takes you to the electoral map and confirmed wins, but if you scroll down on that page, you see the same "tachometer"-style graphics that you linked to more directly. 305 electoral votes isn't a reality yet, but I trust that it will be soon.
ReplyDeleteAs for 75% being an arbitrary figure for defining a landslide: I find it perfectly fair and consistent with history. According to that Wikipedia link, most US presidential landslides showcase far higher percentages: 85% to nearly 98%. 75% is lowballing it, which makes it more than fair in terms of setting the bar for a landslide.
No doubt, Trump has won a clear, distinct, and undeniable victory. I just can't see it as a landslide, even if/when he does reach 305 or so electoral votes. 305 electoral votes is 57% (305/538 = 0.5669...), which is barely above break-even.
But like I said, the system was rigged enough against Trump that if it had been truly fair, without government meddling, widespread voting fraud or verified media collusion with the DNC, he would have likely won at least several more states in my estimation. And I really do think that Comey's last-minute announcement that Clinton was, once again, entirely innocent of any wrong-doing with regards to her private email server totally stunk to high heaven, and definitely reversed Trump's surging momentum at the very end of the race. Hell, even Obama verifiably lied about not knowing of its existence prior to media reports last year, so he was in on the scheme himself.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, Obama had every reason to protect her and place his thumb on the scales, because it's almost a certainty that he'll have to face justice, or at the very least national shame, with a President Trump in the White House. And if Trump taps Rudy Giuliani as Attorney General, expect him to go after Obama, Clinton and all the rest like ruthless, relentless shark.
By the way, I followed this poll throughout the race:
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/#popular-vote
It was also the most accurate poll during the 2012 election cycle. All the other retards in the corrupt legacy media who kept trying to convince us that Clinton was ahead by double digits were nothing but paid or partisan shills, and should be conscripted for service in building our wall along the southern border with Mexico, so that they might actually learn from the treasonous error of their ways.
"And I really do think that Comey's last-minute announcement that Clinton was, once again, entirely innocent of any wrong-doing with regards to her private email server totally stunk to high heaven..."
ReplyDeleteNo disagreement here.
Meme Magick Is Real
ReplyDeleteThere's no doubt about it: The Internet loves Trump, and Trump loves the Internet.
Game Over!
Julian Assange Issues Statement On The US Election
ReplyDeleteJulian Assange and all the other folks at WikiLeaks are straight-up heroes. I trust that President Trump will do all he can to ensure that Assange is cleared of any charges hanging over him. At the very least, he deserves both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Journalism, for he likely is single-handedly responsible for thwarting a U.S. war with Russia, and very possibly WW3.
Democrats Busted On Camera Stuffing Ballot Boxes
ReplyDeleteYou think this didn't happen during the general election? I consider Hillary's total number to be highly suspicious at the very least.