Liberal and Media Bias, Hypocrisy, Outrage, and Bad Precedent (Part II)

Yet, the media is defending the effort of Jill Stein, and now backed by the Clinton campaign, to raise money for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Trump won Wisconsin by 1% or about 28,000 votes; Trump won Michigan by 0.3% or about 11,000 votes; and Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.3% or about 70,000 votes. Most states do an automatic recount if the election is decided by less than 0.25% which none of these states qualify. Hence, Jill Stein has started to raise money for a recount and thus far a recount has been granted in Wisconsin. What is odd is why is Stein leading this charge? She earned more votes as the Green Party candidate in all three of the states in question to put Clinton in the White House. Remember, Green Party votes are 90% more likely to take a vote from the Democratic candidate than the Republican candidate (Libertarian candidates usually take more votes from the Republican candidate). Liberals claim that Trump outperformed Romney numbers, especially in rural areas, by huge margins (10 to 20%) and that seems unlikely. In fact, Trump won 38 more counties in those three states than Romney won (Republicans win most counties in general elections, so winning that many more is an amazing feat). But there are several reasons as to why this recount will not change anything. First, there is no evidence of any cyber security hack. Secondly, the urban and rural voting patterns in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were similar to what happened in other states such as Ohio, Iowa, and Minnesota (strong correlation in voting patterns) and even to a lesser degree – Florida and New Hampshire (moderate correlation in voting patterns). And there is even some weak correlation in other states that Clinton won: Colorado and Nevada. Thirdly, some may argue that results may have been “rigged” in those other states as well. However, each state has a different method of voting and in some cases voting methods are mixed. For instance, Iowa and Minnesota elections are not electronic – they are entirely paper ballots. Hence, there is no way to “hack” these elections through cyber security breaches. Also, rural counties in Wisconsin use paper ballots. The bottom line is there is a paper trail that supports the election results: a trend of Trump outperforming Romney big league. Fourth, Trump can lose any one of these states and still win the election. In fact, he can lose both Wisconsin and Michigan and still win the election. And his lead in Pennsylvania is the largest and most secure of the three states. Fifth, these are huge leads in all three states. Finding tens of thousands of votes just does not happen. Fifth, Trump under performed the results of Republicans in U.S. Senate races in rust-belt states. Finally, what most people fail to realize is that Obama outperformed Gore and Kerry by large margins in rural rust belt counties and the trend just reversed itself?

But where is the criticism of the left in the media for dragging out this election and failing to conform to our democratic ways? Stein is obviously doing a favor for the Clinton campaign why else would she select three states that Trump barely won. Why not contest states Clinton barely won - Minnesota (1.4%) or New Hampshire (0.3%)? It is because Stein is working in cahoots with the Clinton campaign. This behavior sets a bad precedent for our democracy as do the violent protests.

I am not condoning any type of biased media coverage. But my biggest beef is that they fail to be consistent on issues. They cover Trump different than they do Clinton over the same issues i.e. “rigged elections” and failing to trust our election system. The media failed to cover Obama in same light over similar issues especially over national security as Bush: war (Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq), drone strikes, NSA metadata, and civil liberty violations (killing of American terrorists without due process). Did the media cover Benghazi, fast and furious, IRS and DOJ targeting, the Clinton email server, or the VA cover up with the same veracity that they covered the outing of Valarie Plame or the firing of federal judges? Is the appointment of Bannon being reported equally as Obama controversial Czar Appointments? Has controversial Obama associations been covered as much as the Alt-Right and KKK supporting Trump (even though he has disavowed them dozens of times)? Has Clinton ever disavowed radical groups such as Black Lives Matter? The public is tired of this blatant bias as they are tired of narcissistic college youths coddled by liberal parents and professors. Liberal youths that want to stifle free speech by hiding in safe spaces on college campuses free of opposing points of view.

Everything that the media or liberals accuse Trump and his supporters of, they in turn do the same thing: Protesting elections and having no faith in our democratic system, discrimination, hateful words and acts, and so forth. As long as the media and liberals behave with hypocrisy, bias, bad precedent, and outrage the Trump movement will gain traction. It is so blatant that no one wants to give the guy a fair shot before he even gets into office. I debated my vote for Trump. It was difficult. However, the more the media covered the election in an unfair matter, the more I saw my vote for Trump as a vote against the media.

Liberal and Media Bias, Outrage, Hypocrisy and Bad Precedent (Part I)

Trump is still nearly two months away from the Presidency, but it is almost comical how he cannot do anything right in the eyes of media since winning the election. First, his transition team was accused of being in chaos and being behind schedule for appointing members to his cabinet. Of course, the media gave him little chance to win the election and he had to use resources on his campaign instead of on the transition since he was outspent 3 to 1. Still, the media would not cut Trump any slack for one instance. After he appointed several cabinet posts Trump was then accused of appointing white supremacists and racists. My Lord, Trump’s first five cabinet selections only consisted of old white men and had no diversity. The next day Trump appointed two women including an Indian-American. The story then changed to Trump only going to two national security briefings (this is serious, but Pence has gone to them all and let’s not forget Obama’s abysmal record of attending these meetings). Unfortunately, this is how it is going to be for the next four years.

Not one media outlet covered the fact that Trump was not going to take a vacation or paycheck (other than the 60 Minutes interview). No one covered the fact Trump backed off his claim of prosecuting Clinton. No one covered Trump’s rule of having anyone serving in his administration to stay out of the lobbying business for 5 years (a failed Obama campaign promise). No one covered how Trump has put aside campaign differences for the better of the country by appointing Nicki Hailey as UN ambassador or by considering Mitt Romney to a cabinet post. No one covered how Trump was considering Democrats for his administration or how he wants to pass an infrastructure bill (similar to Obama). In fact, Trump is acting much like a liberal or Democrat in many regards especially on trade and the economy.

While Trump can do no right, the media has said nothing about the violent protestors against the Trump victory: records indicate that most of those who were arrested did not even vote. The media failed to condone the treatment of Mike Pence at a “Hamilton” play even though cast members including Javier Munoz, who plays Hamilton, did not vote. What precedent does it set to look the other way when Americans overstep the reigns of democracy? The media seems to have favorable views of Californian’s wanting to succeed from the union (Clinton won California by an amazing 3.5 to 4 million votes). First of all, succession is illegal (Texas v. White). Secondly, every time a conservative state threatened to succeed in the past they were critically chastised by the media. The media criticized Trump for his answer in the final debate about wanting to “wait and see” about whether or not he would concede after the election if he lost. Every newspaper in the country made this the most important issue that came out of the last debate. They claimed Trump is against our democratic process especially since he continually claims the process and system is rigged. There is no question that Trump saw what the DNC machine did to Bernie Sanders and he did not completely trust the system. Who could blame him other than the media?

Roosevelt and Taft: The Fathers of Modern Day Liberalism (Part I)

Democrats continually make the claim time and time again that the Republican Party is the “Do Nothing” Party. They argue conservatives have no real ideas or concepts. In fact, a look at history would explain that Democrats are the Party of no ideas or concepts. Lincoln emancipated African-Americans and it took a plurality of Republicans to pass the civil rights under LBJ. It took a plurality of Republicans to pass women’s suffrage. Even Reagan provided amnesty to illegal immigrant Hispanics. And Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean up the environment. Today, Democrats use African-Americans and women as pawns in their crusade to conquer and divide Americans. And they use the EPA as a means to regulate companies in their pursuit to combat what they call “manmade” climate change. Democrats use Republican ideas and concepts on steroids.

In fact, a look back at history shows the first real progressives in the White House were Teddy Roosevelt and William Taft and they were Republicans. Taft and Roosevelt were two very different people both physically and in persona. Roosevelt was fit and Taft struggled with his weight at times ballooning over 325 pounds. Roosevelt was a talker while Taft was a listener. Roosevelt was brash while Taft was congenial. Roosevelt had a massive super ego while Taft was laid back and did not let any personal agenda take over his motives. Roosevelt was a warmonger while Taft was a peaceful man. Roosevelt governed by trying to find ways to circumvent the law, Taft was a lawyer and judge by trade and hence he always tried to do things by the book (legally). Despite these differences, both Taft and Roosevelt where the best of friends and when it came to domestic and foreign policy they saw things pretty much eye to eye.

Roosevelt got his claim to fame by being New York City police chief and mayor as well as assistant secretary of the navy. He is most famous for being the leader of the Rough Riders during the Spanish American War winning the battle at San Juan Hill. However, it was his preparedness of the Navy that helped the U.S. win decisive battles at Manila and Santiago to win the war. Taft was a lawyer who became an Ohio state judge at an early age. He was President Benjamin Harrison’s solicitor general before being nominated by President McKinley to be the first governor of the Philippines after Spain succeeded that territory to the U.S. after the war.

Roosevelt was a brash individual more concerned with popular public opinion. He was the first president to use the press to his advantage. Once Roosevelt confirmed investigative reports were factual – he acted. Most thought he was a leader, but he was actually a follower. He followed public opinion to be popular. He acted by using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to break up unpopular monopolies in the railroad industry. He acted through Congress and through executive order to conserve more western lands than any other president in history – combined. Roosevelt supported unions and their quest for better working conditions, child labor laws, and an eight hour workday. Reports of terrible conditions in the meatpacking industry also forced Congress to pass the Food and Drug Act making it imperative for products to list its ingredients. Roosevelt was the first president to pass regulations to keep corporations in check. Without a doubt, Roosevelt increased the power of the executive branch and the media to push his agenda through public opinion. Roosevelt even pushed for renewable energy – hydro power and the irrigation of desert lands. The Roosevelt administration was a like our present day Obama administration. They both pushed regulations on corporations, both pushed for renewable energies and policies to protect our environment, and they both expanded the role of the presidency mostly through executive actions.

A few of Roosevelt’s biggest accomplishments were not his gaudy domestic policies, but in foreign affairs. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing about the peace treaty between Russia and Japan ending the Russo-Japanese War (Obama also won the Nobel Peace Prize, but he did nothing to earn it). He started work on the Panama Canal and progress was made in American colonization in Cuba and the Philippines. However, the man that should take credit for Roosevelt’s successes in foreign policy were William Taft.

Taft was assigned to be the first governor of the Philippines following the victory over the Spanish is the Spanish American War. Taft made remarkable progress towards moving the country towards independence. The goal was always to stabilize the country until they could enjoy their own independence. Once Roosevelt became President he moved his friend Taft to take over his Secretary of War position in his cabinet. As Secretary of War Taft set up the peace talks between the Russians and Japanese; Taft managed the construction of the Panama Canal; and he even helped thwart a revolt in Cuba to restore order and create a new Democracy with free elections.

Why Clinton Lost and the Post-Election Protests (Part III)

Trump’s policy for child care, inner city infrastructure improvements, reducing crime and drugs (bringing law and order to our cities), thwarting terrorism, and education of choice is why minorities and women voted for Trump. I have heard bigoted statements to explain why minorities and women voted for Trump. For example, male Hispanics voted for Trump because he is a misogynist. Really? Since the election I see and hear people reacting to perceived discrimination by Donald Trump by using the same methods of inciting discrimination in the form of hate, anger and violence against others. This makes little sense, yet we let them get away with it.

Part of the trouble with the post-election protests is that most of the people are young adults whose lives consist of social media with no interpersonal skills. These youths are narcissistic and do not understand American democracy customs. For instance, I saw several signs saying “Trump in not my President”. The key word is “my”. They think the election is about them. They do not care or have any clue that there are about a million voters in the Rust Belt States that are hurting. People that have voted Democrat, or maybe for Perot, over the past 25 to 40 years. Yet, the same problems persist because they have been ignored election cycle after election cycle. It is no wonder they voted for change this time around.

I am astounded to hear professional coaches and celebrities say they cannot believe half the country voted for racism, homophobia, and sexism. These folks are ignorant to the fact that the Democrats ran a bad candidate with plenty of her own baggage. They are ignorant to the fact that many people in this country are hurting and want change after decades of voting for Democrats only to be ignored. The fact Trump overcame the media, the establishment, money, and host of other issues shows that people are tired of Washington. NBC has an interview of Bill Clinton’s rape accuser but failed to play it in its entirety. But they played Trump’s 11 year old Access Hollywood video one month before the election. The truth is that NBC had the video for over a year before they aired it. Why didn’t they play the video when they got it? Because they wanted Trump to win the Republican primary since they felt he was Clinton’s best chance of winning in the general election. These are the games our media plays. So you should blame NBC for the Trump presidency. They clearly took a premeditated risk to be the hero to take down Trump, but they failed. A New York Times editorial claims they will be back to reporting the truth after the Trump win to win back customers. Over the past eight years the Times failed to cover dozens of Clinton and Obama scandals, yet they still could not sway public opinion. Media outlets across America paid hundreds of employees to find dirt on Trump, but nothing on Clinton. Over 90% of all media coverage during the election cycle on Trump was negative compared to less than 20% for Clinton despite her crimes, collusion, and lies. America has totally lost faith in the government and the media. Obviously, there are four big losers in this election: Clinton, Obama, Democrats, and the media. Yet, they still have not learned their lesson. For instance, days following the election the Clinton News Network (CNN) only covered negative stories about Trump and how he is trying to gain top security access for his children. First, the story is false, and second they failed to mention Trump will not take a paycheck and he will not take a vacation as president. Asked on 60 Minutes if he was concerned the Trump business brand was damaged during the campaign Trump said “it does not matter” because the country comes first over his business. This unselfishness is not covered, but false stories are.

The bottom line is that the media's hack job in this election cycle has brainwashed half of America into thinking that not only is Trump a racist, all of his supporters are racists and bigots because there is no good reason to vote for him. And of course, Clinton is a strong woman who is a Saint. The media spews fiction that has incited Americans to protest. The story would be much different had Trump lost and his supporters were protesting. The media's portrayal of Americans is no better than what they accuse Trump of being.

Why Clinton Lost and the Post-Election Protests (Part II)

The media did a good job painting Trump as a misogynist, racist, and sexist. These are all the things that I have been called, by people who do not know me on Facebook, for voting for Trump. Misogynist seems to be the big new liberal word. I am not going to defend Trump’s hurtful words, but Clinton is far worse because she has actions behind her hateful words. Clinton criticizes Trump’s action towards women but yet she remains married to a sexual predator (Trump is an accused sexual predator). If Clinton was the strong woman that others claim she is, then she would left Bill a long time ago. Obviously, it became a marriage of convenience for political purposes. What’s worse, Clinton attacked her husband’s accusers and was even caught on tape making fun of a 12 year girl rape victim whose attacker she helped to free based on a technicality. The Clinton Foundation accepts money from rouge countries that oppress women and kills homosexuals. Accepting money over civil rights concerns is a sign of bad person with no conscious. Wikileaks exposed how Clinton used the Eric Gardner killing for political gain; how the campaign demonized people of faith; and how the campaign called out those “needy” Hispanics. In fact, she is caught saying she does not like people in general. Kellyanne Conway was the first woman to lead a successful presidential election in US history. Unfortunately, this accomplishment was overlooked by the media since she was not the right kind of woman – a former Democrat and now Republican.

Then there are Clinton’s ties to corruption, lies, bad decisions, and collusion with the media. The Clinton Foundation is being investigated for “pay for play”. Less than 30% of the money in the Foundation goes to charitable causes. Most of the Foundation money pays for salaries, travel, expensive overhead, and there is evidence to show it payed for Chelsea’s education. Clinton made the bad decision to oust Qaddafi in Libya which created a vacuum for terrorism to grow (that will happen if there are no boots on the ground). This, in turn, led to the attack on the US Embassy and CIA Annex killing four Americans in Benghazi. Clinton then lied about the cause of the attack to cover up her negligence to provide proper security. What’s worse, while Obama traveled to a campaign fundraiser in Vegas Clinton failed to send help. In essence, she abandoned dozens of people under attack at the CIA Annex essentially leaving them to die. They would have all died had it not been for the heroic efforts of a few of our finest. Clinton also decided to do all of her email correspondence as Security of State on an unsecure server in her basement. Wikileaks proves that this was done to cover up “pay for play” at the Clinton Foundation. Clinton then lied about why she used the server; why she destroyed thousands of emails and electronic devices; and why she had national security information on the server. The server was hacked at least 5 times putting the lives of Americans at risk. And if all this is not bad enough, the Clinton campaign colluded with the media and the Democratic National Convention to win the presidential nomination over Bernie Sanders. Clinton was even provided debate questions in advance. Accepting the questions is just as egregious an act as the person who provided the questions. In the general election, debate moderators continued to inject themselves into the process against Trump (Martha Raddatz). Clinton and Obama were implicated in videos for trying to incite violence at Trump campaign events. Clinton has accused the FBI for losing the election for her, but the FBI did not make these terrible decisions and then lie to cover things up. Clinton needs to own up to her responsibilities instead of blaming others.

It was the third debate that was the turning point in the election. After the debate everyone said Trump did better except for his shocking answer on conceding after the election which made the headlines. (It is strange how Clinton supporters are the ones protesting while the media showers them with praise for operating their Constitutional rights while Clinton and Obama have done very little to stop these events.) Pundits said Trump did nothing to sway voters in that third debate – he just spoke to his base. That is 100% wrong, Trump was polling in the 70 - 80 percent range with Republicans and he brought them home with his debate performance. First, he talked about repealing and replacing ObamaCare at a time when premiums were going up 50% nationwide. Second, he assured people that he would place conservative judges on the Supreme Court. He even mentioned if he got a few appointments that could overturn Roe v. Wade. He successfully painted Clinton as extreme on abortion - in favor of third trimester abortions. Third, he assured people he would protect the second amendment. Clinton’s fictional answer on the Heller case should have made headlines, but it did not. However, most advocates of the second amendment understand the Heller decision better than most and her falsehoods did not go unnoticed outside the media. Clinton even claimed to want to overturn Citizens United. Yet, most Americans know that no person has benefited more from this ruling than she has -raking in over a billion dollars mostly from Wall Street (the people and corporations she claims to despise) during this election cycle. Trump paid nearly 100 million into his campaign and rightly called out Clinton for not donating one cent to her own campaign despite being worth well over 100 million dollars. Trump will not accept a pay check as President, but Clinton’s Wall Street like greed is worth noting. Although Clinton was much better prepared for the debates, her lines were rehearsed and did not come across as being authentic (or true in many instances, like her public / private answer bringing Abe Lincoln into fray).

Why Clinton Lost and the Post-Election Protests (Part I)

Clinton lost the election more so than Trump won the election because she won the battle of highly flawed candidates. Statistically reviewing Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota revealed some critical insight. Although Clinton’s margin of victory in major cities and suburbs was in line with 2012 or better, she still lost all of these states except Minnesota (she won MN by 1.5%). Overall, the turnout was down from 2012 and in rural areas Clinton’s vote was down and Trump’s vote was up in almost every county. We can conclude three things after running some basic correlation on the data: 1. Democratic (or left leaning independents) voters stayed at home 2. Democratic voters voted for Trump and or 3. Democratic voters voted for a third party candidate. It was probably a combination of all three of these things. Florida was a bit different than the Rust Belt states because voter turnout was up. But we can still conclude Democrats or left leaning independents were more likely to vote for Trump or a Third Party candidate (higher correlation). We can conclude that Republicans did a better job getting their electorate out to vote or that Clinton’s Get Out to Vote (GOTV) effort energized more Trump supporters since Trump did much better than Romney with minorities and people of faith. One poll estimates that Clinton’s GOTV energized up to 15% of Trump supporters (remember the 2016 electorate looked a lot different than 2012 but Clinton used the same models to identify potential voters). And finally, Clinton had a three to one money advantage and an army of people at her command. Yet, she was outspent in Wisconsin and Minnesota by Trump. In fact, she never visited these states in her campaign. Clinton did not lose Minnesota, but it close. These were huge missteps by the Clinton campaign. There was no excuse to get outflanked by Trump in battleground states.

Trump not only had to overcome a money disadvantage but he also had to overcome a battle with establishment Republicans to win. Clinton also had the advantage of having a popular president campaign on her behalf to save his legacy. However, he was repudiated. It is my belief that people confuse approval ratings with likeability. People may personally like Obama but they really do not approve of his agenda. For instance, the popular Joe Biden campaigned for Hillary non-stop in Scranton PA, yet Clinton lost 10 points in Lackawanna County from how Obama performed in 2012. Obama has been the gift that keeps giving to the Republican Party. Democrats now have their lowest representation in federal and state governments since the Civil War.

How stunning was this victory. Trump could have lost Florida and he still would have won the election. Nobody predicted that. Yet, as stunning as Trump’s victory was, I am convinced that any other Republican candidate could have fared just as well if not better than Trump. House Republicans won the national vote by nearly 3 million votes (Despite House Generic polls showing Democrats up by 3 to 4 points) which was about 3.5 million votes better than Trump. And Trump underperformed most Republicans in Senate races in many key battleground states he narrowly won: Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin. Let’s face facts, Trump was a bad candidate, but Clinton was worse.

Over 25% of Clinton supporters had as one of their top two reasons to vote for her was because she was a woman. Quite frankly, discrimination or sexism is not a very good reason to vote for anyone. I do not understand how voting for someone because they are women is any better than Trump remarking on a woman’s looks. They are both sexist and have no place in our culture. The converse is also true, voting against someone merely because they are women is equally wrong. If discrimination or sexism accounted for a big reason why over 15 million people voted for Clinton, then she really did not have much to offer the American public in terms of policy after 30 abysmal years in public service and politics. And for the struggling people of Florida and Rust Belt states, voting based on prejudice, sexism, and discrimination were obviously not an option.

Why Were the Polls Wrong?

My models were wrong because the polls were wrong (polls are the data used to create models). I was wrong in four states: Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (Michigan is still too close to call but Trump holds a small lead). In those four states more than 23 million votes were cast and the deciding margin was less than 230,000 votes (less than 1%). Wisconsin was probably the most surprising state. Trump campaigned there a few times (the Clinton campaign did not) and it was the only state in the country where he outspent Clinton on TV ads. The Trump campaign obviously did a better job there. With both campaigns spending the waning days in Pennsylvania and Michigan it seemed the race there may be tighter than the polls indicated. Not one poll all year had Trump ahead in Wisconsin and only one poll had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania the entire year.

I gave Trump a 35% chance of winning (higher than everyone else including 538) and I even said if he wins it is highly probable that Clinton would win the popular vote (and that appears to be the case). Why did I give Trump such a high chance of winning? It became apparent that many of polls may be wrong. For instance, the average of polls had Trump ahead in Nevada. By reviewing the early vote data it looked like Clinton should win the state and she did by about 2.5%. The early vote also looked like Trump may outperform the polls in Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Iowa, and Ohio. In fact, he outperformed the polls in Iowa and Ohio by well over 5 points. Because of this, I thought Trump could outperform the polls and hence my model had him with a better chance of him winning. Unfortunately, the amount of data provided by early voting is minimal and only a few states provide Party ID and or Demographics.

Polls are created by taking data on phone calls and then weighting the data based on what the pollster feels the electorate will look like based on location, Party ID, age, gender, and ethnicity. For example, let’s look at Florida. A pollster knows from the previous presidential election what percentage of the vote is coming from the Panhandle, NE, I4 Corridor, SE, SW, and North Central part of the state. They also know what percentage of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents vote in the state as well as the gender and ethnic makeup of the electorate. They will weight their polling data to fit the electorate. A pollster may change some things such as understanding that for instance the Latino vote may be a percent higher than the previous election. Polls generally have an error around +/- 4%. So a poll saying Clinton would win by 2 points means she may win by 6 points or lose by 2 points. Hence, there is a big margin and that is why when modeling we like to take the average of several polls to average out some of the inaccuracies. The average of polls in Florida were not that bad. They had Trump winning by 0.2% and he won the state by 1.2%. I actually thought Clinton would win the state by a similar margin. Why? The early vote showed a massive turnout and an increased Latino vote. A massive vote usually favors the Democrats (it means their turnout machine got minorities to polls). Trump won the small heavily conservative counties by huge margins – about 10 points better than Romney. I did not see that coming, nor did the Trump campaign who thought the early results from Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Springs counties were going to doom them.

So why where so many average of polls not only wrong, they were wrong in favor of Clinton? Here are some polls and their error:

Florida: R+1, Iowa: R+6.6, Ohio: R+5.5, Nevada: D+3.4, North Carolina: R+3.5, Pennsylvania: R+3.1, Michigan: R+3.7, Wisconsin R+7.5, and Minnesota R+7.6. States like Virginia, Maine, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Arizona were polled fairly accurately. So other than Nevada and Arizona, states that Clinton won were polled accurately and states that Trump won were polled inaccurately.

Time will tell why this happened, but there are many explanations. First, polls may have oversampled Democrats thinking the turnout would be as big as Obama elections in 2008 and 2012. Democrats outpaced Republicans by 7% in 2008 and 6% in 2012. Exit polls suggest that Democrats only had a 4% advantage in this election. Also, polls consistently showed Trump winning 85% of Republican voters and Clinton winning at least 90% of Democrats. Exit polls showed that Trump won 90% of Republicans and Clinton won 89% of Democrats. Second, third party candidates garnered over 5% in most states and that makes polling more difficult. Third, it is possible that polling companies felt there was no way that a person as un-presidential and unfavorable as Trump could win the election and they may have altered their models to show this. In essence, the polls showed what the media wanted. Fourth, it seems that Trump won a higher percentage of working class Independents and or Democrats than what polls indicated. This was especially true in the “rust belt” states. These may be union workers who did not want to admit to pollsters they were voting for Trump. Fifth, Trump not only won non-educated Whites by over 30%, he won educated Whites by 5%. Most polls indicated he was losing educated Whites. It is possible that educated Whites could not admit to pollsters they were voting for Trump for fear of being labeled a racist. Sixth, Trump won a higher percentage on African-Americans and Latinos than Romney and these people possibly did not want to admit to pollsters that were for Trump. Seventh, polls cannot model enthusiasm. But a model can take into account that a candidate is outmanned and outspent by a 3 to 1 ratio. Finally, late deciders broke for Trump according to exit polls.

Interesting, many exit polls (the polling of people right after they vote) were also wrong. Why did it take so long for media outlets to call the state of South Carolina or Utah? Trump won these states by 15 and 20 points respectively? Nevada and Colorado which Clinton won by 2.5% were called far faster. What this tells me is that exit polls in many cases were also wrong.

2016 Election Projection (11/8 - Final)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race (Unfortunately, I think it is all over for Trump. The state and national polls are all converging.):

Poll Average: Clinton +3.3

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +3.0 (35% chance Trump wins)

The site Five Thirty Eight: Clinton +3.6%, Electoral count: 302 Clinton, 236 Trump (28% Trump Wins)

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong. This year they are converging in the same area.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+6.4

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) R+0.6

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) D+1.4

FL AA 12.5% AA 9.3%

FL HIS 9.6% HIS 14.1%

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+6.7

OH D+6 (O+1.9) R+5

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+5.9

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+9.8

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 22.1%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 27.8%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+13.5 (ME2 D+7.8)

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. HIS 9% means the portion of the Hispanic vote was 9%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012. Although African-American vote is down, the good news for Democrats is that voting is up.

2. Early voting suggests Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The good news for Democrats is that overall early voting is up. The average of the polls has Trump ahead by 1.

3. The early vote suggests Trump should win in Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). 4. Florida is lean Clinton. Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American (-3.2%) turnout is considerably lower. However, early voting in Florida overall is up overall which is a good sign for Democrats especially since there is a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote. Equally a good sign for Democrats is that polls indicate Clinton leads among people who voted early and she has a slight lead in the polls. If that is true Trump is in trouble. But a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote will not make up for a 3.2% decrease in African-American vote. That should be a net decrease in the Democratic vote by 0.5 to 1%.

5. It looks like Trump’s momentum in the polls has run out of steam both nationally and statewide. 6. New Hampshire looks like it may be in play according to recent polls and is now a toss-up. New Hampshire does not have early voting. 7. Based on the early vote Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days. Trump is up in the polls in NV, but the early vote, though lower than 2012, still points very favorably to Clinton.

8. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote. Trump can lose by 2 points and still win the electoral vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 308 to 230 and the popular vote by 2.5 to 3.5%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Maine, New Mexico, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 17 seats in the House and the Senate at 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans (That is a gain of 3 seats for the Democrats). The Republicans will also lose one Governorship.

2016 Election Projection (11/7)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race (Unfortunately, I think it is all over for Trump. The state and national polls are all converging.):

Poll Average: Clinton +2.9

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +3.0 (37% chance Trump wins)

The site Five Thirty Eight: Clinton +3.2%, Electoral count: 297 Clinton, 241 Trump (32% Trump Wins)

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong. This year they are converging in the same area.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+6.4

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) R+0.4

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) D+1.4

FL AA 12.5% AA 9.3%

FL HIS 9.6% HIS 14.1%

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+8.1

OH D+6 (O+1.9) R+5

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+5.9

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+9.8

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 22.1%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 27.8%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+14.5 (ME2 D+8.8)

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. HIS 9% means the portion of the Hispanic vote was 9%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012. Although African-American vote is down, the good news for Democrats is that voting is up.

2. Early voting suggests Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The good news for Democrats is that overall early voting is up. The average of the polls has Trump ahead by 1.

3. The early vote suggests Trump should win in Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). 4. Florida is lean Clinton. Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American (-3.2%) turnout is considerably lower. However, early voting in Florida overall is up overall which is a good sign for Democrats especially since there is a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote. Equally a good sign for Democrats is that polls indicate Clinton leads among people who voted early and she has a slight lead in the polls. If that is true Trump is in trouble. But a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote will not make up for a 3.2% decrease in African-American vote. That should be a net decrease in the Democratic vote by 0.5 to 1%.

5. It looks like Trump’s momentum in the polls has run out of steam both nationally and statewide. 6. New Hampshire looks like it may be in play according to recent polls and is now a toss-up. New Hampshire does not have early voting. 7. Based on the early vote Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days. Trump is up in the polls in NV, but the early vote, though lower than 2012, still points very favorably to Clinton.

8. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote. Trump can lose by 2 points and still win the electoral vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 308 to 230 and the popular vote by 2.5 to 3.5%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Maine, New Mexico, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 17 seats in the House and the Senate at 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans (That is a gain of 3 seats for the Democrats). The Republicans will also lose one Governorship.

2016 Election Projection (11/6)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race:

Poll Average: Clinton +2.2

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +2.9 (42% chance Trump wins)

The site Five Thirty Eight: Clinton +2.8%, Electoral count: 291 Clinton, 247 Trump (35% Trump Wins)

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong. This year they are converging in the same area.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+6.4

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) D+0.2

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) D+0.5

FL AA 12.5% AA 9.3%

FL HIS 9.6% HIS 14.1%

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+8.1

OH D+6 (O+1.9) R+5

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+6.1

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+9.8

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 21.6%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 27.6%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+14.5 (ME2 D+8.8)

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. HIS 9% means the portion of the Hispanic vote was 9%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012. Although African-American vote is down, the good news for Democrats is that voting is up.

2. Early voting suggests Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The good news for Democrats is that overall early voting is up. The average of the polls has the race even.

3. The early vote suggests Trump should win in Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). 4. Florida is real toss up. Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American (-3.2%) turnout is considerably lower. However, early voting in Florida overall is up overall which is a good sign for Democrats especially since there is a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote. Equally a good sign for Democrats is that polls indicate Clinton leads among people who voted early and she has a slight lead in the polls. If that is true Trump is in trouble. But a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote will not make up for a 3.2% decrease in African-American vote. That should be a net decrease in the Democratic vote by 0.5 to 1%.

5. It looks like Trump’s momentum in the polls has run out of steam, especially nationally. 6. New Hampshire looks like it may be in play according to recent polls and is now a toss-up. New Hampshire does not have early voting. 7. Based on the early vote Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days. Trump is up in the polls in NV, but the early vote, though lower than 2012, still points very favorably to Clinton.

8. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote. Trump can lose by 2 points and still win the electoral vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 275 to 263 and the popular vote by 2 to 3%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Maine, New Mexico, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 17 seats in the House and the Senate at 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans (That is a gain of 3 seats for the Democrats).

2016 Election Projection (11/5)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race:

Poll Average: Clinton +2.3

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +3.0 (42% chance Trump wins)

The site Five Thirty Eight: Clinton +2.9%, Electoral count: 291 Clinton, 247 Trump (35% Trump Wins)

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong. This year they are converging in the same area.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+6.5

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) D+0.2

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) D+0.1

FL AA 12.5% AA 9.3%

FL HIS 9.6% HIS 14.1%

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+8.3

OH D+6 (O+1.9) R+5

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+5.5

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+9.8

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 21.6%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 27.6%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+14.5 (ME2 D+8.8)

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. HIS 9% means the portion of the Hispanic vote was 9%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012. Although African-American vote is down, the good news for Democrats is that voting is up.

2. Early voting suggests Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The good news for Democrats is that overall early voting is up. The average of the polls has the race even.

3. The early vote suggests Trump may win very close decisions in Florida, Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American (-3.2%) turnout is considerably lower. However, early voting in Florida overall is up overall which is a good sign for Democrats especially since there is a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote. Equally a good sign for Democrats is that polls indicate Clinton leads among people who voted early. If that is true Trump is in trouble because it looks like he should lead. But a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote will not make up for a 3.2% decrease in African-American vote. That should be a net decrease in Democratic vote by 0.5 to 1%.

4. It looks like Trump’s momentum in the polls has run out of steam. 5. New Hampshire looks like it may be in play according to recent polls and is now a toss-up. New Hampshire does not have early voting. 6. Based on the early vote Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days. Trump is up in the polls in NV, but the early vote, though lower than 2012, still points favorably to Clinton.

7. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote. Trump can lose by 2 points and still win the electoral vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 275 to 263 and the popular vote by 2 to 3%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 17 seats in the House and the Senate at 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans (That is a gain of 3 seats for the Democrats).

2016 Election Projection (11/4)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race:

Poll Average: Clinton +2.6

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +3.1 (42% chance Trump wins)

The site Five Thirty Eight: Clinton +3.3%, Electoral count: 296 Clinton, 242 Trump (33% Trump Wins)

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+6.2

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) D+0.2

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) 0.0

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+7.9

OH D+6 (O+1.9) D+?

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+5.5

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+10.9

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 21.8%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 27.6%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+15.5

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012. Although African-American vote is down, the good news for Democrats is that voting is up.

2. Early voting suggests Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The good news for Democrats is that overall early voting is up. The average of the polls has the race even.

3. The early vote suggests Trump may win very close decisions in Florida, Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American turnout is considerably lower. However, early voting in Florida overall is up overall which is a good sign for Democrats. Equally a good sign for Democrats is that polls indicate Clinton leads among people who voted early. If that is true Trump is in trouble because it looks like he should lead.

4. It looks like Trump’s momentum in the polls has run out of steam. 5. New Hampshire looks like it may be in play according to recent polls and is now a toss-up. New Hampshire does not have early voting. 6. Based on the early vote Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days. Trump is up in the polls in NV, but the early vote, though lower than 2012, still points favorably to Clinton.

7. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote. Trump can lose by 2 points and still win the electoral vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 279 to 259 and the popular vote by 2 to 3%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 18 seats in the House and the Senate at 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans (That is a gain of 3 seats for the Democrats).

2016 Election Projection (11/3)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race:

Poll Average: Clinton +1.7

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +3.4 (41% chance Trump wins)

The site Five Thirty Eight: Clinton +3.1%, Electoral count: 292 Clinton, 246 Trump (34% Trump Wins)

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+5.9

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) D+1.0

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) R+0.2

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+9.1

OH D+6 (O+1.9) D+?

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+5.6

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+10.9

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 21.8%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 27.7%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+15.5

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012.

2. Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The average of the polls has shifted dramatically today with Trump moving ahead. The early voting showed this.

3. Trump may win very close decisions in Florida, Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American turnout is considerably lower.

4. If 1, 2, and 3 are true then Early Voting does not track the state and national polls outlined at the beginning of this blog.

5. Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (probably congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days.

6. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 279 to 259 and the popular vote by 1.5 to 2.5%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 18 seats in the House and the Senate at 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans (That is a gain of 3 seats for the Democrats).

2016 Election Projection (11/2)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race:

Poll Average: Clinton +1.9

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +4.1 (37% chance Trump wins)

The site Five Thirty Eight: Clinton +3.7%, Electoral count: 301 Clinton, 237 Trump (30% Trump Wins)

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+5.9

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) D+1.9

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) R+0.4

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+12.5

OH D+6 (O+1.9) D+?

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+5.4

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+11.7

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 22.1%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 28.0%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+17

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012.

2. Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The average of the polls has shifted dramatically today with Trump moving ahead. The early voting showed this.

3. Trump may win very close decisions in Florida, Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American turnout is considerably lower.

4. If 1, 2, and 3 are true then Early Voting does not track the state and national polls outlined at the beginning of this blog.

5. Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (probably congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days.

6. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 279 to 259 and the popular vote by 1.5 to 2.5%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 19 seats in the House and the Senate at 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans (That is a gain of 3 seats for the Democrats).

2016 Election Projection (11/1)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race:

Poll Average: Clinton +3.1

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +5.2

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+5.3

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) D+2.6

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) R+0.4

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+12.5

OH D+6 (O+1.9) D+?

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+6

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+12.5

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 22.4%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 28.4%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+17

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012.

2. Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The average of the polls have Trump down by 2 points.

3. Trump may win very close decisions in Florida, Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American turnout is lower.

4. If 1, 2, and 3 are true then Early Voting does not track the state and national polls outlined at the beginning of this blog.

5. Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (probably congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days.

6. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 279 to 259 and the popular vote by 1.5 to 2.5%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 19 seats in the House and the Senate at 50 to 50 deadlock (That is a gain of 4 seats for the Democrats).

Comparing and Contrasting Presidential Assassinations (Part II)

Guiteau and Czolgosz were captured immediately after they committed their crimes. Both stood trial and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. They were both found guilty and executed. Guiteau was hanged (363 days after the crime) and Czolgosz (45 days after the crime) was executed by the electric chair. Guiteau’s long time frame between crime and execution was partly due to the fact Garfield lived a long time and Guiteau was very active in his trial (interrupting the proceedings constantly). On the other hand Czolgosz would not even talk with his lawyers. Oswald was caught shortly after his crime and killed two days later by Jack Ruby when he was being transferred to the county jail. Booth was on the run for 11 days before he was tracked down and killed when he refused to surrender.

The assassinations were mostly politically motivated. Booth sympathized with the Southern slavery cause and shortly after the Civil War ended and Lincoln said that slaves should be granted the right to vote, Booth decided to kill Lincoln to stop that action from occurring. Czolgosz was an anarchist who thought McKinley was the enemy of the working class and the ally of oppression. Oswald was a communist who had issues with America and its values. Oswald defected to Russia in 1959 before coming back to the United States in 1961. Only Guiteau murdered for personal reasons. Guiteau sought an ambassadorship to France but his dozens of requests (in person and by mail) to Garfield and Secretary of State James Blaine went unanswered (Blaine finally told him was not qualified and to stop bothering him). Guiteau would later explain that God told him to kill the president. Guiteau was without question delusional.

Chester Arthur and Teddy Roosevelt, who succeeded Garfield and McKinley respectfully, continued the policies of their predecessors. Arthur became Garfield and Roosevelt became McKinley (they both even tried to keep the same cabinet intact). Roosevelt however, created additional progressive policies such as creating National Parks, food and drug protection, an inheritance tax, and railroad regulations. Congress blocked much of what Roosevelt wanted to accomplish and that may explain why he had nearly as many executive actions as every president before him, combined. Andrew Johnson tried to continue the work of Lincoln, but Johnson was a Democrat and he did not earn the respect of the radical Republicans in Congress who wanted revenge on the South. Johnson was blocked every step of the way and barely avoided impeachment for trying to circumvent restrictions placed on the president by Congress. Lyndon Johnson’s administration was vastly different than the Kennedy administration both in foreign and domestic policy. In fact, Kennedy was vastly more conservative than Johnson. Johnson got us involved in Vietnam and domestically he pushed for a massive progressive power grab. The war on poverty became one of the biggest scams in American history. Despite trillions of dollars for welfare programs, poverty rates have remained unchanged for 50 years. Johnson’s Great Society was a power play as was the progressive push by Teddy Roosevelt. Other than Civil Rights reform and continuing the space program, Johnson had an agenda that was vastly different than Kennedy.

The assassination of four American Presidents is important because it changed the course of history and more than likely it changed history for the worse. If the assassinations did not happen, without question Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, and Lyndon Johnson would have never seen the White House. Teddy Roosevelt would more than likely have won the 1904 and 1908 elections. It is distinctly possible that Taft could have won the White House in 1912 and the bigoted Woodrow Wilson would have never seen the White House. As it stood, Roosevelt cost the Republicans the 1912 election by running as a third Party candidate splitting the Republican vote so Wilson could win the election. Eliminating the presidencies of Wilson and LBJ would have been huge. Both were highly progressive and grew the size and scope of government. LBJ created the welfare death spiral that we have been on for 50 years. How much longer can our country go on with our massive federal debt, especially knowing that our unfunded liabilities are almost insurmountable? If Lincoln had not died then the reconstruction period after the Civil War would have more than likely gone much smoother without as much impact from radical Republicans in Congress seeking revenge on the South. Only Arthur actually became a better person once given the power of the Executive office. Arthur grew a backbone and turned his back on the Stalwart faction of the Republican Party led by Roscoe Conkling to be an unlikely but effective leader.