The “medium is the message”. That angry Khan at the Dim convention? He helped Trump. The polls? We’ll look at those today then discuss why the Dim convention was a fail and why Trump does so well.
Recently, in our comments section, the full perfidy of Reuters and its polls was discussed. On Twitter some carried our analysis forth:
— M.Joseph Sheppard (@MJosephSheppard) July 29, 2016
To summarize our analysis, the Reuters poll, as with most election “reportage” by Reuters, skews dramatically against Donald J. Trump. Reuters has confessed that it’s polls have been skewed against Trump, although even in that confession they lie. Reuters wrote, Reuters/Ipsos poll probably underreported Trump’s support before the Republican convention, perhaps by 3 to 5 percentage points. The canny poll watcher M. Joseph Sheppard notes that as late as July 14 Reuters reported Trump was behind Hillary Clinton by 15 points whereas Reuters claimed 12 points. The claim by Reuters that Trump support was “underreported” only 3-5 points is a further lie.
The Treehouse Last Refuge picked up and regurgitated our analysis. Our analysis is exactly correct. Reuters pushed its sleazy polls as gospel, even as the massive outlier skew made a joke out of the poll averages. Only when the Reuters phony polls began to, allegedly, help Donald J. Trump did Reuters dramatically confess it had to change the poll methodology. When Trump was hurt by the phony polls, Reuters ho-hum-ed. When Trump was allegedly helped, it was an all points alarm need to change the poll methodology.
After the latest “fix”, Reuters happily issued a new poll with Trump once again behind. Reuters is a horses behind. Reuters is not to be believed and its polls should not be included in poll averages in any honest amalgamation of polls. But even with the new Reuters poll skewing the average, Trump at worst is tied – 44.3 to 44.3 (except that when third party candidates are included, Trump is ahead).
There are plenty of outliar polls. Last Thursday the Suffolk poll declared Trump was 9 points behind in Pennsylvania. That same poll placed Republican Senate incumbent Toomey 7 points behind his challenger. In 14 polls taken in the Pennsylvania Senate race, Toomey has led in 12 polls. Conclusion? The Suffolk poll is garbage.
So what is going on with the polls? Trump hater or at least skeptic, Sean Trende gets and gives a clue:
Back in the summer of 2015, when Donald Trump rode down the escalator in Trump Tower, the debate was not about whether he would win the Republican nomination, much less the presidency. It was about whether he would even file his papers. He did.
The debate quickly coalesced around how many weeks he would last. Weeks turned into months, as he quickly took the lead in the polls. The debate then shifted to how soon he would become this cycle’s Herman Cain, who led in the polls briefly in 2011 before collapsing, followed by confident predictions about why his insensitive comments about Megyn Kelly, John McCain and a variety of minority groups would lead to his downfall. At the end of 2015, he had led in the polls for months. [snip]
As we moved into the primary season, we debated just how low the ceiling on his poll numbers would be, why he would begin to lose as candidates dropped out, why his continued losses in debates (in the eyes of pundits) would tank his chances of winning, why his followers wouldn’t show up to vote, how various states wouldn’t prove to be well-suited for him, and so forth. [snip]
Since Trump’s nomination, we’ve heard that Hillary Clinton would wrap up the race after Trump’s comment about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, or after Sanders endorsed Clinton, or after Trump’s supposedly disastrous convention. We’ve heard about how he is effectively stuck at 40 percent in the polls and would have a hard time pulling ahead.
Now we are in the post-convention phase of the campaign. Trump leads by .2 percent in the RCP Average and has cleared 44 percent of the vote. FiveThirtyEight gives Trump a 46.1 percent chance of winning overall and a 54.5 percent chance of winning on Election Day, if things look then the way they do today. Yet we continue to hear arguments as to why he just won’t win: She’ll move into the lead after her convention, or after the debates, or when people go into the polls and have a final soul-searching moment.
At a certain point, the goalposts have got to stop moving. It should be obvious by this point that, yes, there really is a winning Trump coalition with a non-trivial chance of coming together. I don’t think the evidence compels a conclusion that Trump is going to win, but the fact that he really might do so strikes me as undeniable.
Nevertheless, echoing the commentary about the Brexit vote in England, there seems to be vehement resistance to serious suggestions that Trump might emerge victorious. Even among analysts who concede there’s a real chance Trump can win, almost all of them seem to think Clinton will eventually pull it out. This is the equivalent of everyone concluding that the opening possession in a game is determined by a coin toss, but then unanimously declaring that the coin will come up heads. [snip]
The point here is not that Trump is guaranteed to win. Clinton maintains a large advertising and organizational advantage over Trump. But she has already dumped $50 million in unanswered advertising on his head, with little movement in the polls. [snip]
No one really knows where the race is going to be in a week, to say nothing of where it will be in November. What I do know is that if you still don’t believe Trump has a very real chance of winning this, you are deeply in denial.
Trump skeptic Dylan Byers picks up on the question of gamblers and “the odds” of Trump winning:
Why Playing the Odds Underestimates Trump’s Chances
The first error, unconscious rounding, happens when someone sees a probability greater than 50 percent and rounds it up to a near certainty or looks at a probability under 50 percent and treats it as a near impossibility. For example, about a month ago I thought Trump had about a 25 percent chance of winning the general election (with the caveat that these probabilities change over time). When I told my Clinton-supporting friends this, they often reacted with sighs of relief, believing Trump was toast if he only had a one-in-four chance of winning.
But events with a 25 percent chance happen all the time. Flip two coins — if both come up heads, you’ve seen an event with a 25 percent probability happen right in front of you. So if a model says Trump has a 40 percent chance of winning, it’s important not to round that down mentally and feel comfortable about the prospects of a Clinton win. A 40 percent chance means a Trump victory is more likely than rolling a one or a two with a six-sided die, and I doubt very many readers would feel comfortable betting something important on the prospect of rolling less than three on a six-sided die.
Second, people forget that presidential elections aren’t blackjack — there are no repeated trials. To see why this matters, suppose you have a blackjack strategy that gives you a 51 percent chance of winning each hand. If you sit at the table all night, you’ll lose a lot of hands. But over the course of the night your winnings should slowly accumulate, and you’ll eventually be able to walk away from the table richer. In other words, over time, you should feel quite comfortable that you’ll come out ahead.
But a 51 percent chance of victory means something very different with a single test. Imagine that you have the same strategy, but that you only get one hand and you’re forced to go all in on it. Suddenly, your 51 percent strategy isn’t so helpful – you’d likely be very concerned about losing everything. In fact, a strategy that has a 55 percent or 60 percent chance of success wouldn’t be very comforting either. Even with those odds, it would be very easy to lose a single hand, and lose everything you owned.
That’s why a 55 or 60 percent chance of winning shouldn’t be too comforting to Clinton or her supporters — this election will only happen once. Clinton and Trump only get to play one hand, and they’re both all in.
The odds and the “maths” as Karl Rove bragged about, are not something we particularly care about. We care more about the zeitgeist and positioning. Not “positions” positioning. Trump has positioned himself as the CHANGE candidate in a change election and Hillary Clinton is positioned by herself and her campaign as the Obama Third Term. Trump is positioned well. Hillary with all her many “position papers” and toilet paper issues is positioned badly.
Lately we quote mainly from Trump haters because even they realize how stupid they are and how badly positioned they are in their #NeverTrump crazy crusade. Trump hater Ben Domenech:
Do The Democrats Realize They Could Lose? [snip]
They are making a similar mistake to those of Trump’s primary opponents – they don’t realize that Trump is a different kind of candidate, and the normal anti-Republican playbook just doesn’t work on him.
Over at Trump hater central, the National Review, the fire bells are ringing louder than a Judy Garland musical. Trump will win say the #NeverTrump:
Hillary Clinton has outspent Donald Trump in unprecedented fashion. Her endorsements bury Trump’s. The Obama administration is doing its best to restore her viability. The media are outdoing their 2008 liberal prejudices. And yet in John Connally delegate fashion, Clinton’s vast expenditures of $100 million plus have so far earned her only a tiny, if any, lead in most recent polls. If each point of approval is calibrated by dollars spent, Trump’s fly-by-night campaign is ahead. [snip]
Pollsters, gamers, insiders — everyone, really — have written his political epitaph for over a year. Rarely have conservative voices at mainstream-media outlets vowed not to support the Republican nominee. And yet the longer he stays viable, the more likely it is that Trump has a real chance at winning the presidency, which may already be a veritable 50/50 proposition. So why is the supposedly impossible at least now imaginable?
1. Not a Typical Populist [snip]
By any definition, Trump is not a classical populist. His traction derives from opposing unchecked and cynical illegal immigration, not diverse and measured legal immigration. And he is rebelling not so much against a flabby, sclerotic status quo as against a radical, even revolutionary regime of elites who are now well beyond accustomed norms. It is hardly radical to oppose the Confederate doctrine of legal nullification in more than 300 sanctuary cities, or a de facto open border with Mexico, or doubling the national debt in eight years, or ruining the nation’s health-care system with the most radical reconstruction in the history of American health-care policy, or systematically running huge trade deficits with an autocratic China that does not adhere to international norms of free trade and predicates expanding political and military power in the South China Sea on its commercial mercantilism. [snip]
2. Obama Nihilism
Do not underestimate the volatility of Barack Obama’s popularity. As long as Obama keeps silent and out of the limelight, he nears 50 percent in approval ratings. The moment he returns to the fray (and he always does, as a June bug to a patio light), he instinctively reverts to his natural divisive and polarizing self, as evidenced in his disastrous reactions to the Dallas police shootings, and his politically suicidal post-Dallas courting of Al Sharpton (who used to call on supporters to “off” police) and of the architects of Black Lives Matter. It is likely that Obama, to cement a hard progressive legacy in the next four months, will only double down on his gratuitous pandering, and therefore will see his poll numbers return to the low or mid-40s. That may help Trump seem an antidote rather than an obsequious continuance.
3. Two Sorts of Elitists [snip]
The popular furor is not directed at the rich per se, but rather at the perception of cultural snobbishness and hypocrisy among those who romanticize the always-distant poor, as they favor the always-proximate rich, and caricature the despised middle class that lacks the taste of the latter and the appeal of the former. Trump’s in-your-face tastes and brashness are vulgar in the pure Roman sense, and his accent and demeanor are not those of the cultural elite, or even of the dignified Mitt Romney–type moneyed bluestockings. In contrast, Hillary, like Obama, talks down to Americans on how they ought to think, speak, and act. Trump seems to like them just as they are.
Victor Davis Hanson accurately describes the atmospherics and the positioning this election cycle. For instance, Trump doesn’t have to “win” the black vote. All Trump has to do is keep his black support strong enough to simply stay home and not vote for Hillary Clinton. A “meh” black voter who does not vote is all Trump need to spell disaster for Hillary2016. Hillary Clinton needs a massive black turnout and a massive black turnout vote for her. This will be difficult. As we have long argued, Obama’s “coalition” is a cult of personality that cannot be transferred. That’s why in 2010 and 2014 Democrats were slaughtered at the ballot box. VDH advances his argument to the election itself:
4. Election Formulas
It is not assured that Clinton can replicate Obama’s formula of record-high minority-voter turnout and bloc voting. More importantly, in a few key states Trump may win 25 to 28 percent of the Latino vote and perhaps 10 percent of the black vote, while Clinton might not capture even 35 percent of the so-called white vote. A surprisingly high minority of blacks and Hispanics do not feel Trump is a nativist or xenophobe, given that illegal immigration is often perceived as putting a strain on scarce social services, imperiling already poor schools, and driving down both wages and the availability of entry-level jobs. Trump’s El Jefeism plays well when juxtaposed to Clinton’s suburban namby-pamby falsity or her unhinged demonization of coal miners and gun owners. The numbers of minority voters in key states who quietly vote Trump need not be great, but rather only must top by 2 or 3 percentage points the disastrous McCain and Romney levels of 2008 and 2012, given the likely historic percentage of white voters that Trump may win. Media elites are in denial over this possibility. [snip]
5. Crimes and Misdemeanors [snip]
That she was not charged only made the FBI seem absurd: offering a damning hooved, horned, pitchforked, and forked-tailed portrait of someone mysteriously not a denizen of Hell. Add in the Clinton Foundation syndicate and the fact that lies are lies and often do not fade so easily, and Hillary in the next 15 weeks may average one “liar” and “crooked” disclosure each week — at a rate that even the Trump tax returns and Trump University cannot keep up with.
6. Four Months until the Election
The tumultuous news cycle — Dallas, Paris, Turkey, Baton Rouge — creates anxieties and a general sense that the nation and indeed the world are in chaos — and without any guidance from the White House. Such a vague foreboding that something has to give to avert catastrophe may favor Trump abroad and at home — especially if he can muzzle himself in times of enormous gift-giving from the Clinton campaign. Obama is a lame-duck president who is perceived as weak, vacillating, and ambiguous about his own country’s role in the world — a world that includes Russia, ISIS, China, North Korea, and Iran. The odds are even that at least one of the above in the next few months will feel that it has a rare opportunity to readjust the regional status quo, or at least will have a psychological impetus to try something stupid to humiliate Obama and the U.S. as payback for seven years of his empty sanctimoniousness. Either way, Trump could benefit, given that Hillary is a perceived tool of Obama’s therapeutic foreign policy. Tragically, at home, in the next few months ISIS may re-emerge, and racial relations are not likely to ameliorate, as Hillary straddles a politically correct tiger that she can neither dismount nor safely ride. [snip]
7. Extremism [snip]
It may well be that voters would prefer a brash-talking pragmatist to sober and judicious ideologues. Sloppy talk about temporarily limiting immigration from the Middle East is not so injurious as contrived efforts never to utter the phrase “radical Islam.” Clinton, Obama, and Sanders have moved the Democratic party radically to the left; Trump in some areas has pushed the Republican party to the center. The voter terrified of ISIS, record debt, the spiraling cost of his health care, perceived U.S. decline, and the seemingly violent racial Balkanization of the country — but not terrified of gay marriage or tough trade talks with China — may find Clinton, not Trump, the true radical.
If the polls are off a bit in this warped election year, they are more likely to err on Hillary’s side. [snip]
9. Converts and Apostates
The relative closeness of polling in key swing states already suggests that the Reagan Democrats and other Trump converts may either be more numerous than the Never Trump establishment or at least more numerous outside of coastal, and electorally irrelevant, blue states like California and New York — and thus more significant as swing-state adjudicators. In addition, traditional media, in which Never Trump views are most frequently aired, are themselves growing ossified and do not reach voters to the same degree as outlets like the Drudge Report, Breitbart News, and talk radio. [snip]
10. The Screech-Owl Factor
For all his lack of discipline, the media-seasoned Trump is still the better and more robust campaigner. [snip]
Heartfelt recklessness can sometimes wear better than packaged sobriety.
* * *
Finally, it is suicidal to descend into the muck to battle Trump. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz all tried and failed, despite the fact that they had every moral justification in hitting back in like kind. [snip]
Brawlers know the rules of the street far better than establishmentarians. [snip]
Ask the trash-talking Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg if she came out on top in dueling with Trump — or whether she virtually destroyed a quarter-century’s reputation in minutes and ended up no better than an elderly version of Rosie O’Donnell in a Supreme Court Justice costume.
Throw in the “secret vote” we have described in the 2010 and 2014 elections in the United States; as well as the elections throughout Europe, most recently the Brexit vote, and the “secret vote” looms large:
Liberal pollster Celinda Lake is warning of a “secret Trump vote” which she discerned from differences between automated and live surveys conducted for the general election match-up.
“The pattern is in the online surveys, even if you control for demographics, Trump does three to nine points better than in telephone surveys,” Lake said in an interview with the Washington Examiner. She also believes that there are many blue-collar white voters who typically don’t vote in elections who might be interested in supporting Trump’s unconventional Republican campaign.
Lake’s concerns are important in the light of an extensive analysis by the New York Times which found that exit polling techniques significantly underestimate the number of lower-middle class white Americans and that they are much more important to Democrats than less comprehensive research had indicated. According to the Times report, these “missing white voters” tend to be younger, less religious, and lean Democratic.
We’ve spoken to our Bern-out friends. The Bernie Sanders supporters we spoke with really, really, hate Hillary. Those Bern-outs we spoke with were rabid Obama fans in 2008 and less so in 2012. But in 2016 they still hate Hillary. Others have spoken with the Bern-outs, with same results:
Today I met the mythical, Trump supporting Bernie Bro [snip]
Then I saw two young men – I’m guessing late twenties – lighting up cigarettes by the wall a ways down from the entrance and I overheard one of them saying, I decided today. I don’t care anymore. I’m going with Trump.
The guy had some Bernie stickers and that definitely caught my attention, so I approached and introduced myself. I asked if he would mind if I asked a few quick questions. (No. No problem.) I also asked if I could use his name and/or get a picture. (Nope. Don’t need that kind of trouble.) After confirming that he was a Bernie supporter and alternate delegate, I got down to business.
Was he not giving any consideration to voting for Hillary? Nope. Never intended to vote for Hillary, wasn’t going to change now. [snip]
“I’m not worried. We’ll get by like we always do no matter who wins. As for Donald Trump, I know this sounds bad but… I really just want to see what happens.”
In 1992, Americans decided to take a chance on a little known Arkansas governor with a shady personal life, for president. Americans were fed up and wanted CHANGE. Bill Clinton won.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton is the “stay the course” candidate, the Obama Third Term calamity Jane.
Which brings us to the Wrath of Khan and the stupidity of Hillary2016. The DNC convention was a calamity Big Media describes as a great success. But Big Media should reread McLuhan. “The Medium is the Message.”
At the DNC the attempt was made to label Donald J. Trump as some sort of lunatic. The DNC, to orgasms from Big Media, dragged a Muslim on stage to attack Trump. The Muslim lost his American soldier son and baited Trump. But anyone with eyes watching teleVISION was disgusted. Our comments section offers an explanation:
Lu4PUMA, you hit on the reason why the wrath of Khan played to Trump’s strength. Once again we repeat, “the medium is the message”. Most voters who witnessed Khan’s temper tantrum took two lessons from the appearance. Lesson 1, Khan was angry and that just confirms the bias of Muslims as angry. Lesson 2, Khan’s wife covered up in shame as Islam does to women.
The “medium” is television. The message is what you saw, not what they said. What was seen? An angry Muslim male and his silent covered up unhappy woman property.
We’ll end our polling discussion with Hillary Clinton supporter Doug Schoen:
Hillary Clinton, Underdog
Even after Philadelphia, the momentum of the race to the White House points in Trump’s direction.
After what even critics said was a highly effective Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton appears to have emerged as . . . the underdog. [snip]
The 2016 election is trending toward Donald Trump. [snip]
This is pretty astounding, considering that Clinton & Co. has spent $57 million on ads thus far—$25 million from the campaign and $32 million from super PACs. Team Trump has put up only $3.6 million in ads, all from outside groups.
Hillary Clinton as underdog is a consequence of the disastrous decision to run as the Obama Third Term. Two thirds of the country believes we are on the wrong track. The Obama economy is a mess. Crime continues to rise. Police officers are targets of the racist Black Lives Matter thugs the Hillary Clinton campaign embraces. Muslim terrorists rampage across the European continent in an expanding war sure to once again scorch America. Yet the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign host an angry Muslim to attack Donald J. Trump.
As November elections approach 100 days hence, Americans will vote their own wrath against Barack Obama, the Obama Third Term, and the modern day Khans.