Las Vegas Oddsmaker Announces Final Prediction: Trump Electoral Landslide Coming

It's all there. All the cards fell into place. Liberals and the biased and bribed mainstream media are just too blind to see it.

It's Donald Trump's win over Hillary Clinton all over again. It's George H.W. Bush overcoming a 17-point deficit to beat Michael Dukakis all over again. It's the final days of Ronald Reagan versus Jimmy Carter, when all of America broke for Reagan at the same time.

At this moment, if you're not blind, deaf or very dumb, it's clear that in these final days up to the election, a majority of American voters, certainly crucial voters in battleground states, are breaking to reelect President Trump.

And I'm not just talking about tightening polls, the few polls that show Trump actually in the lead or battleground states where Trump is outperforming his numbers from his race against Clinton four years ago.

Much more importantly, I'm talking early-voting numbers. Trump is doing extraordinarily well in early voting in Florida, Nevada, Iowa, North Carolina and Arizona. Trump and Republicans are outkicking the coverage. In other words, they're kicking the Democrats' butts -- with the physical votes on Election Day still to come. And we all know Republicans rule on Election Day.

If Florida is representative of battleground states all over the country, Trump is about to win both the Florida popular vote and an electoral landslide. Democrats are panicking in Florida and all over the country.

Trafalgar Group, which ran the most accurate state-by-state poll of 2016 by factoring in the "shy Trump voters" (people afraid to tell a stranger on the phone they support Trump), shows Trump taking the lead this week in Florida, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Rasmussen shows Trump's approval rating at 52%, five points better than former President Barack Obama's at this same time in 2012 when he was heading for reelection victory.

On Friday, Poll Watch came out with its electoral map, which shows a Trump landslide of 312 electoral votes to 226.

Trump is leading in Miami-Dade County and Palm Beach County (Democratic strongholds) in early voting. That's like winning the lottery. That's like two lightning strikes in the same spot. That's an election miracle.

Joe Biden added a Friday campaign event in Minnesota -- another ominous sign for Democrats. A Republican hasn't won Minnesota since 1972. Democrats clearly don't have Minnesota locked down. If Trump wins Minnesota, then a Ronald Reagan-Walter Mondale landslide is forming. All bets are off. Trump could run the table.

I'm not a pollster. I'm a gut-instinct guy. I'm a Las Vegas oddsmaker-turned-conservative talk-show host. And I just happen to be the media personality who predicted 2016 exactly right and has been predicting a 2020 Trump electoral landslide for months -- in the face of poll after poll showing double-digit leads for Joe Biden.

-- Nothing else matters like the poll question "Are you better off than four years ago?" Fifty-six percent of voters in one survey answered yes! That's the highest in modern history. Reagan scored 44%, and he won a 49-state landslide. Trump scored 56%.

Even more importantly, who exactly are they better off than? Common sense says they're not voting for the guy who made them feel worse (Biden) over the guy who made the feel better (Trump).

-- I know Florida is the key. If Trump wins Florida, he's in the driver's seat. And based on early-voting numbers, Florida appears to be a smashing Trump win.

-- Next in importance comes Pennsylvania. What's been happening in Pennsylvania lately? If you haven't noticed, deep-blue, Democrat-controlled Philadelphia is on fire -- rioting, looting, burning and injured cops. I guarantee the rest of Pennsylvania voters have noticed. This will push Trump over the edge in Pennsylvania. Democrats have clearly destroyed Philadelphia. Why would any sane Pennsylvanian voter want them to do the same thing to the entire country?

-- Then there's Hunter Biden's poisonous laptop. The media and social media conspired to black out any news. It didn't matter. The story got out. Did it change millions of votes? Nope. It merely changed a few key swing-state votes. That's all Trump needed.

-- Finally, I come to the infamous kill shot, the coup de grace. Just as I predicted weeks ago, the third-quarter gross domestic product was released on Friday. It showed 33.1% economic growth, the highest in America's history. It was double the highest GDP in history before this.

This is proof of the Trump economic miracle. And proof Trump has handled COVID-19 in an extraordinary way. He kept us alive and, more importantly, employed. He kept our economy alive to fight another day. He kept our businesses open. We have hope; we have opportunity; we have a future. BRAVO, President Trump.

Who'd be dumb enough to vote against that record? Thirty-three percent economic growth? Who'd be dumb enough to vote against the greatest economic growth in history? My answer is no one (except a few dumb Democrats).

Game. Set. Match. Checkmate. Trump will win a smashing electoral landslide on Tuesday.

speaking of betting on Trump:

while predictit.org is a RIDICULOUS indicator of how an election is actually going to go, it’s a FANTASTIC way to make some easy money ... i cleaned up in 2016 when the odds were ridiculous against trump winning, like 3 to 1 he’d lose, and i cleared $6,000 in winnings after fees and taxes ...

it’s about 3 to 2 right now that trump will lose this time around, so the money isn’t quite as easy as 2016, but still a great bet as far as i’m concerned ... i’ve made several bets this go around, including bets on individual swing states ... btw, i should note that i’m not normally a gambler, but i consider most of these bets pretty darn sure things (i did take a flyer on the GOP winning the House and am thinking of betting on trump taking the popular vote) ...

i’ve tried to figure out why these odds don’t make more sense, in particular they’re not moving at all as a steady drumbeat of polls in the various swing states are shifting in trump’s favor, as well as early indications of bad news for Dem turnout and good news for GOP turnout in various locales, plus the whole hunter laptop scandal ...

so, why are the betting odds so out of whack? predictit.org is a legal betting site that’s an academic experiment at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, and what i’ve decided is that it attracts a substantial number of bettors from NZ, australia and europe, ALL of which have even more slanted “news” than the U.S., and the fools that are betting there are betting based on VERY limited and HIGHLY biased information ... thus i consider those of us in the U.S. that ignore the fake polls and intensely study a large variety of sources outside the mainstream have a leg up on the average ignorant bettor at predictit.org ...

Maverick Modeller Helmut Norpoth Predicts Another Win for Trump

Political scientist Helmut Norpoth fields media calls every week seeking comment on the upcoming presidential election. Why the interest? In 2016, he was one of a handful of experts who correctly predicted the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election.

Norpoth, a professor in Stony Brook’s Department of Political Science, has enjoyed notable success forecasting elections based on his Primary Model, a statistical representation of U.S. presidential races based on data going back more than a century
http://primarymodel.com/

The Primary Model

forecasting presidential elections since 1912
Political scientist Helmut Norpoth fields media calls every week seeking comment on the upcoming presidential election. Why the interest? In 2016, he was one of a handful of experts who correctly predicted the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election.

Stony Brook, NY; Stony Brook University: Helmut Norpoth
In 2020, his model once again projects a Trump victory, giving the incumbent President a 90-percent chance of being re-elected in a landslide — a controversial call that runs contrary to current polls.

The Primary Model has correctly predicted five of the past six presidential elections, and when applied to previous elections, correctly predicts an impressive 25 of the last 27, missing only the 2000 election in which George W. Bush defeated Al Gore and the 1960 election in which John F. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon — two extremely close and contested votes marred by allegations of voting inaccuracies.

Norpoth began working on his model after the 1992 presidential election, putting it to the test for the first time in 1996.

“My first forecast was the 1996 election, the one where Bill Clinton was re-elected for a second term,” he said. “Predicting a Clinton win was considered a stretch at the time because he was pretty bad in his first term.”

Norpoth, who has been at Stony Brook since 1979, correctly predicted Clinton’s win using a very simple early version of his model. He would expand the model in the years to come, an ongoing evolution that continues to this day.

But one key metric that was apparent to Norpoth even in the early stages — the importance of early presidential primaries — remains a critical part of the Primary Model.
After the 2008 election, in which Barack Obama won the nomination and then the election despite failing to win the New Hampshire primary, Norpoth expanded the range of primaries to include the South Carolina primary as well.

“But that’s it,” said Norpoth. “I focus on early primaries and the way the candidates perform in those early contests. It’s a very good predictor, and a leading indicator of what’s going to happen in November.”

He described the focus on primaries as the key difference between his model and others.

“It’s all about primary elections, which are real electoral contests and the votes are counted and tabulated,” he said. “I also use real numbers, such as the results of previous elections, which indicate whether the pendulum is swinging away from or toward the White House party. This is something that also relies on real election results and not any kind of an opinion poll.”

Unlike many other projections, Norpoth’s equation ignores approval ratings.

“That’s a poll number,” he said, “and I don’t use those. I think the primary performance of a sitting president is usually a proxy for that. But I don’t use any polling data or data related to opinions.”

In light of this information, Norpoth said he wasn’t surprised that his model gave Trump a very strong chance at a second term.

“When I looked at New Hampshire and I saw that Donald Trump got 85 percent of the votes, and the closest challenger was Bill Weld at 10 percent, I was pretty sure what the model was going to predict,” he said.

“If Trump had gotten only 55 percent and an opponent had gotten 40 percent, I may not have predicted that Donald Trump would have a chance to win. Maybe. It would depend on the other side as well.”

As for the Democrats, Norpoth said that the sheer number of candidates and the inability of any one of them to get off to a fast start may have doomed the party from the start.
“People have forgotten how Joe Biden did in New Hampshire,” said Norpoth. “He was terrible. He got 8.4 percent of the vote, which is unbelievable for a candidate with any aspirations of being president.”

So was there anything any of the Democrats could have done this year to get in a better position, or was it Donald Trump’s election to win or lose?

“What the Democrats should have done if they were really serious about beating Trump would have been to rally around one candidate right from the start and not have a protracted battle in which people get wounded,” Norpoth said. “They needed to pick one person and have everybody else take a pass. That’s the only way I could see that my model would have worked in their favor.”

Norpoth, who has studied election primaries going back to 1912, is confident of the math behind his model.

While some might suspect that unusual circumstances — e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic and the civil unrest in the wake of the George Floyd killing — might have an unpredictable effect on the election results, Norpoth said those crises have no bearing on his projection.

“My prediction is what I call ‘unconditional final,’” he said. “It does not change. It’s a mathematical model based on things that have happened. The presidential election of 2016 has happened, the primary results are in. I can add in the results of more primaries, but even those numbers have happened and can’t change either.”

Norpoth also scoffed when asked to comment on the argument that the Trump presidency has been widely described as being “unlike any previous presidency.”

“Every president is unique, and I think people get a little carried away with that description,” he said. “Obama was the first Black president. Is that not unique? If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, she would have been the first woman president. Is that not unique? I grant that Trump is in many ways a very special kind of character, but I think we also tend to exaggerate that.”

One model change Norpoth has made for the upcoming election has been to focus on the Electoral College.

“Now I predict straight to the Electoral College,” he said. “I’ve never done that before, but I made an adjustment because of the mismatch we had in 2016, and I’m prepared to see Trump lose the popular vote again. So this prediction is entirely about the electoral votes.”

Norpoth said that while he manages not to get emotionally connected to these projections, the reactions to his projections sometimes do take an emotional toll.

“I get a lot of reactions, and I get a lot of mail,” he said. “Some of the comments are unprintable. I do get backlash, and I get it from people whose opinions I value, people who are friends. And I can tell that some people find it difficult. So there is an emotional part that goes on.”

[A side note: Political junkies likely remember the hoots and jeers that greeted Ann Coulter’s prediction of a Trump 2016 win on Bill Maher’s TV show]:

But at the core, said Norpoth, it’s just math.

“Everybody thinks Trump is going to go down in flames, and here I am predicting with almost total certainty that he’s going to win,” he concluded. “It seems crazy. But it’s not.”
Twenty-five of the last 27 U.S presidential elections can vouch for that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.