Replies

Guess we’ll see who’s right a month from now... Given every prediction regarding Trump has been wrong to date by the pundits, I hold little belief that the standard arguments apply.

Obama has huge enthusiasm, that Hillary does not have... 65 M votes on Election Day for her is wishful thinking. She has nowhere near the support, enthusiasm or anything else to be close to Obama’s 12 numbers.

Evaluating this election through the lense of recent modern elections is simply refusing to see that this is a disruptive cycle... Something that hasn’t happened in US politics at the national level in a long long time.

If you think 2016 will be anything like 2012 you are showing a bias toward what was over what is. Comparing 2016 to 2012 is a false premise from the get go.

Let’s take one state shall we? PA for example. 2008. I got just shy of 3.3M votes.. 12 just shy of 3M. R got 2.65 and 2.68 respectively. So with dud candidates R can put 2.7 in the box without trying.

Hillary won’t be anywhere near O’s 2012 numbers in PA and Trump will blow the 2.7M of 08 & 12 out of the water. Hillary will be lucky if she sees 2.5/6M in PA. Trump will be close to 3M. Philly machine will not be able to put enough in the box to carry the state.

A month from now we’ll see.. The traditional pundit believes this is a slog and up hill election that will be close... I see it as a disruptive cycle that isn’t going to be close at all.

A few more weeks we’ll see whose right. Given the traditional arguments have fallen to reality this entire cycle... Trump should have never been the nominee based on traditional approach... Yet here we are and folks still keep trying to argue the traditional viewpoint.

Time will tell. I see it Hillary has a functional max or low 40s, no matter what she does she won’t top that. Trump should easily manage far above that as long as he doesn’t self destruct.

Obama didn't have huge enthusiasm in 2012 compared to 2008. He received 3.5 million less and his winning margin was cut from 7.6% to 3.8%, almost half. He still won by 5 million votes. Romney and McCain both received less votes than Bush did in 2004 (62 million). Romney received a million more votes than McCain.

The population of voters is increasing every year. In 2000 we had a national population of 281 million compared to 320 million today. In 16 years we added the equivalent of another CA. We have added 35 million legal permanent immigrants who eventually are eligible to vote.

Each year we bring in 1.1 million legal permanent immigrants, 87% of whom are minorities as classified by the USG. Minorities and immigrants vote more than two to one Dem. By 2019, half of the children 18 and under will be minorities. As a result, each cohort that turns 18 annually will be more minority and Dem than the previous one.

By 2043 non-Hispanic whites will be 50% of the population down from 63% today and down from 89% in 1970. Non-Hispanic whites are the Reps main power base. Forget the illegal aliens. Legal immigration is making the Dems the permanent majority party.

PA has gone Dem the past 6 elections. 1988 was the last time the Reps won (by 105,000 votes). The Philly and Pittsburgh machines manufacture the votes needed to win. Something is going on there that is not kosher. In 2004 Bush won 2.7 million votes, more than 500,000 than the previous election and still lost to Kerry who received 2.9 million, almost 500,000 more than Gore received in 2000. In 2012 Obama received almost 500,000 votes more than Romney in Philadelphia and 90,000 more than Romney in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh). So Obama lost the rest of the state by 300,000 and still won by 300,000 with the margin being Philly and Pittsburgh. No doubt voter fraud was rampant.

A month from now we’ll see.. The traditional pundit believes this is a slog and up hill election that will be close... I see it as a disruptive cycle that isn’t going to be close at all.

It will be close if Trump wins. If Hillary wins, it will be a blowout, at least electorally.