Posted on 08/23/2016 3:31:05 PM PDT by LS
In the wake of the constant dichotomy between mass rallies, obvious energy for the Trump campaign, internet dominance beyond all imagination . . . and those darned polls . . . we are regaled with tales of 2012. Then, we constantly are reminded, anecdotal evidence was wrong and Obama won.
I have thought about this a lot, and looked at the 5 million vote difference for Obama---but to be fair, a mere 450,000 votes in five states would have made Romney president. This is old news. I bring this up because of what is today an even starker contrast between the no-energy Cankles campaign/internet presence and the polls. Salena Zito has a great pieced today (http://nypost.com/2016/08/22/stumped-by-trumps-success-take-a-drive-outside-us-cities/) on just how real the support for Trump is outside some of the major cities. In her case, she is discussing Pennsylvania, which more than ever before in the last 25 years seems a genuine possibility to go Republican.
Is it all a facade? Let's re-look at the so-called anecdotal evidence of 2012. First, while Romney (and in 1984, Mondale) had a couple of big crowds---I recall one at Westchester, Ohio---he did not have consistently big crowds anywhere, and not until the very (desperate) end. Trump has been having these crowds since last JUNE. I know, I watched the first 11,000 crowd here in Phoenix on local TV. It's one thing to mass 15,000 people one time, quite another to do it 6-7 times a week for 52 weeks and counting. So some of these people "double dip" and attend more than one rally? Probably. Most? Doubtful. Are they the "most committed of the Trump supporters?" Without question.
Other people cite bumperstickers, yard signs (as Zito does) and so on. I think this understates Trump's support this time because people are afraid of vandalism to cars and homes.
But here is what I (we?) missed in 2012: the apathy for Obama, which was, in anecdotal terms clear, obvious and observable (and which showed up on election day with about 4 million fewer votes) WAS MATCHED by apathy for Romney (who only got 2 million more than McCain). Those of us commenting on the decline in enthusiasm for Obama did not notice the commensurate decline in enthusiasm for Romney.
Now, I'm still not quite a believer in the "four million conservatives stayed home" theory. Even if every one of those "four million" showed up (depending on where they showed up) Obama still might have won. But it is pretty obvious that Romney did leave a LOT of votes on the table.
Are there four million "neverTrumpers?" I seriously doubt it. Maybe nationally there are one-tenth that.
So, there is some evidence that in fact the anecdotal evidence was there---some of us just didn't see ALL of it.
This time, there is real, genuine voter registration evidence in FL, IA, NC, and even OH that suggests that Republicans have increased their numbers enough to carry most of these states. (Still working on OH, whose only numbers so far show a net +3000 for Rs in the D county of Cuyahoga). But I do think that the anecdotal evidence is there that Cankles will be no Obama in turning out her vote and I stand by my prediction that she will be hard-pressed to hit 58m votes with both Johnson and Stein in the race.
Some soldiers made the most obvious objection...that in a point blank ambush, the likelihood would be that one would not have the opportunity to charge and fire back sense one is likely already going to be shot dead.
Of course the objection, though obvious, is foolish. There is no need for battle drills when you are dead.
What title of nobility did she receive? That is what that clause is about. It’s not about getting bags of cash. Even the founders knew they were not going to stop that.
“Few signs or bumper stickers here in central Virginia, either way.”
I think what’s interesting here in northern Virginia, a blue part of the state, is the dearth of Hellary signs. I haven’t seen one in our neighborhood.
I’m beginning to suspect that Romney, being part of the establishment, purposely lost the 2012 election - he was probably told to make sure and lose by doners.
Romney wanted to win.
He just didn't want to work very hard for it.
He thought it would just come to him (like so much else in life did), and if it didn't, it wasn't meant to be.
My anecdotal evidence is that I only see “Hillary for Prison” bumper stickers but plenty of Trump/Pence ones.
Also, I live near and drove through Warwick NY last weekend. I saw plenty of Trump signs, no Hillary.
Warwick is a hippy dippy liberal town. Sure, it’s surrounded by farmers and conservatives, but in the town itself it is dominated by red diaper babies. Note, I’m talking in general here, there are certainly conservatives that live there, but a Republican trying to get elected in Warwick has a huge up hill climb.
Yep.
I have not seen even one sign where I live. I did see one bumper sticker a wk ago. That’s it. Folks just keeping thoughts to themselves.
Excellent essay, thanks!
Lots of Trump visuals here in Southern California (vacationing). I’ve seen only 1 Hillary bumper sticker. VERY SURPRISING!
Stick a fork in her.
I think this might possibly be the one election where a high turnout might actually be really good. I think maybe a lot of folks are engaged who have never have been or haven’t been for a long time. I think most of those people will vote Trump. We’ll see I guess.
Freegards
Ignore all media
Get Out The Vote
They manufactured 400,000 votes in each of Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. Mr. 538 knew. Other pollsters didn’t.
In Ohio, Obama campaign even had extra ground game the last 3 weeks because even with 400,000 extra/minus from Romney, it was still looking close. In 2008, McCain didn’t campaign seriously, because the bipartisans wanted what came to be called Obamacare, so the US could go down the same path as Europe and Canada.
At least 1.5 million American stayed home, mostly evangelicals put off by Romney’s Mormon faith. Anyone who wants to run the numbers will get similar answers.
In an honest count, Hillary would hover at 38-40%, Johnson at 5-7%, Stein 2-4%, Trump 51-53%%. IOW, a landslide.
I think you are underestimating the #nevertrumpers around though, I have my own anecdotal set of stories, there are a LOT of them.
I have talked several people off the ledge who were once #nevertrumpers, but I know a WHOLE LOT MORE! I also know a whole lot of people who may not like him as their first choice, but are going to vote for him anyway. Some enthusiastically.
This election is still in flux, so I am focusing on doing three different things:
First, shore up the base and those who will surely vote for Trump as long as the full court press from the MSM/internetoligarch complex doesn't work, so their media collusion does not discourage them or change their mind.
Second, change the minds of the #nevertrumpers and the #mightaswellbenevertrumpers. They can and should be talked off the ledge, if nothing else they can be shown just how bad Hillary is and will be, plus the Supreme Court in the balance (tell them about the choice of his judges). Bring this number down to irrelevant.
Third: Ridicule Hillary, and ridicule (softly if you can) those who are considering voting for the most incompetent (zero actual accomplishments), corrupt, most dishonest, most power hungry and greedy person to ever run for the presidency. Help them understand the shame and insanity of voting for that kind of person. Help them stay home on election day. Discourage them, make them feel sick at their nominee.
does he get a slug of unseen votes
depending on a bunch of ‘unseen’ voters who typically don’t vote is delusional; Trump’s best strategy now is to continue to hone his populist style with a more refined presentation...
this has worked; never trumpers on another website I frequent were arguing passionately because some theought Trump’s latest speeches were darned good, and where was this Trump earlier...
The title she received was that of benefactress. Her name is attached to any good works the foundation might putatively do.Its not about getting bags of cash. Even the founders knew they were not going to stop that.no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the US], shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign stateIt doesnt say title of nobility exclusively, it says title, of any kind whatever. It is a mandate for strict separation of US government from any foreign government. When you say, "of any kind whatever, you are saying that you know people will try to fandangle, and that if they try to do it they are presumptively guilty of accepting bribery.
Present or emolument directly addresses getting bags of cash. Just because they could not even foresee the name Hillary Clinton - let alone pass a bill of attainder against her - does not mean that they did not pass a law against what she has done. They did. The intent could scarcely be clearer.
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.