My Photo

Ordering Information

Tomi on Twitter is @tomiahonen

  • Follow Tomi on Twitter as @tomiahonen
    Follow Tomi's Twitterfloods on all matters mobile, tech and media. Tomi has over 8,000 followers and was rated by Forbes as the most influential writer on mobile related topics

Book Tomi T Ahonen to Speak at Your Event

  • Contact Tomi T Ahonen for Speaking and Consulting Events
    Please write email to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com and indicate "Speaking Event" or "Consulting Work" or "Expert Witness" or whatever type of work you would like to offer. Tomi works regularly on all continents

Tomi on Video including his TED Talk

  • Tomi on Video including his TED Talk
    See Tomi on video from several recent keynote presentations and interviews, including his TED Talk in Hong Kong about Augmented Reality as the 8th Mass Media


Blog powered by Typepad

« Many Mobile Industry Stats Updated Including Uniques, Mobile Internet, SMS, mBanking | Main | The Secret Transcript of the Phone Call between Trump and Bill Clinton »

October 19, 2015


Stephen Reed

Your model is great!

I will stick with my prediction, based upon current poll trends, that Donald Trump wins every state. Notably current polls predict Trump wins in Texas, in Florida and in Ohio.

A winning issue for Trump is his wall along the Mexican border and a tightening of legal and refugee immigration into the USA. The muslim migration into Europe is a dramatic example of what can go wrong - from the viewpoint of US Republican and Republican-leaning voters.

In the general election, Trump's populist views on limiting immigration, and expelling illegals, have economic implications that will drive a larger than expected fraction of working class Democrats to vote for Trump over say Hillary Clinton.

I predict that Trump will poll well in some historically Democratic states, resulting in a historic landslide for Donald Trump in the general election.

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Stephen

Fair enough. Trump has held his polling lead far past the typical 'summer fling' that usually last only about a month. He may well hold his lead to Iowa, and if he then wins Iowa, with whatever smallest actual vote count, that win would carry his momentum to NH, then a win there onto SC and Nevada. As long as the field remains wide, with something near 8 rivals still in the race by the end of February, Trump could carry that momentum into the SEC primary day of 1 March and have a super haul of delegates. Its certainly a perfectly plausible scenario. And like you note, even in almost every state with a home field advantage to their own candidate, Trump has recently polled ahead of the local rival.

If the polls hold, then yes, Trump could win so many of the states that he could take the nomination and in that case, he could take the nomination by late March. I do think, however, that all signs suggest Trump's time on the top is about to pass, some state polls have already shown Carson as the newest flavor of the month. I am expecting national polling to flip their lead, Trump was down to a 1 point lead in the latest poll out last week. Trump's direction in polling support is down, and that suggests he is unlikely to win everything coming his way, and even if during his peak support in the summer, he was ahead of others in their homes states, like beating Bush and Rubio in Florida, and beating Cruz in Texas, that was at 'peak Trump'. The first states to revert back to someone else than Trump taking the lead, will be those states with strong local candidates. So Ohio should go to Kasich, Kentucky to Paul, Texas to Cruz and Florida either to Bush or Rubio. I am confident those home states will go to their own candidates, oh and Huckabee to win Arkansas. But Trump can even afford to give all those away, he could still win it even if Fiorina takes California haha... But the more states he doesn't win early, the more it pushes his final delegate count victory to a later moment in time, into April and May. And then, the danger of course is, that one of the rivals 'catches fire' winning a state or a few, and suddenly makes a race of it against Trump. Because nearly half of the votes are awarded proportionately, there will be at least 6 and likely 8 rivals to Trump who will have enough delegates on March 15, that they can still get more than Trump by the end, if they have a lucky streak with the winner-take-all states after March 15.

But yeah, if you're a Trump fan, keep hoping those polls hold haha, your candidate does have a legitimate chance to get the nomination, fair and square. I calculate he has the second best path to the nomination only behind Ted Cruz's chances. He may well win it. But Trump would have a disasterous general election loss to Hillary, losing in a landslide. I will talk about that in more detail when we do the Form Guide blog about each candidate's observed strengths and weaknesses, that I will release when its finished, in some days. So lets talk of Trump vs Hillary after you've seen that blog, and you've seen my reasoning and 'evidence' haha.

Tomi Ahonen :-)


Matthew Yglesias and I share an assessment of the facts (though we have different opinions about whether it's a good or bad thing).

Obviously if Trump actually manages to get the nomination it could throw the House in play, but the GOP knows that and won't let it happen. If it goes to a brokered convention, Rubio is the nominee. The party can't stand Cruz, who would have been the conservative firebrand if not for Trump. Is 2016 4 years too early for Rubio? Probably, but being 4 years too early didn't hurt Barack Obama. At worst, Rubio keeps enough of the coalition together to cut losses in the Senate and potentially re-take it in 2018.


More polling data from NBC/WSJ. Full data arrives on Tuesday.

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Catriona

Thanks for the link ot Yglesias's article, I had not read that one before. Much of what he writes, I agree with. But when you go to the 'Republican plan' part, with its four planks, that all makes perfect sense, if that comes true. The previous three planks are useless if the fourth turns out not to be true. The fourth plank was the theory that a wave election only happens against an incumbent President and a wave election thus cannot happen in favor of the Democratic candidate now. That may have historical merit as an observation (I had never thought of it in that light) but it will not matter in 2016.

We do know, from 2008, that a 'demographic' surge can happen (pro or against a given candidate). In 2008 there was a clear, strong, measured surge in the black vote in favor of Obama, compared to normal black votes in previous Presidential elections. It can clearly be seen in the exit poll data. However, that wave was at least partly countered by an anti-black vote by racists, actually admitting they voted against Obama because he was black, also in the 2008 exit polling. Unfortunately its not possible to measure the size of that racists vote surge because in 2004 the exit polling did not bother to ask if anyone was voting as a racists haha, as there were only white guys on the ticket on both sides. So its possible to get a surge (I do not mean wave) in any one demographic group. And Obama 2008 election showed that one such surge may also get a counter-surge and the size of the white racist vote in 2008 was so big, it likely cancelled out the added black voters who would not have voted otherwise. In any case, those two effects either cancelled each other out, or muted the effect to whoever gained. It turned out immaterial as the election was a wave driven by the youth vote, and targeted not against the incumbent W Bush (although there was plenty of that too, on both sides, as McCain had been against the way the Iraq war was run, and often critical of his party's President) but targeted against Sarah Palin who polarized the electorate and exit polls clearly show, Palin cost McCain more votes than she brought in from the right wing fringe.

To Yglesias's thesis. If its true that a wave cannot form for the party who has the incumbent President, then yes, his whole article would have a lot of worry for the Democrats and cheer for the Republicans. But we've already seen, very recently, that a demographic can surge when they find 'their kind' as the Presidential nominee. It happened measurably for the black vote in 2008. Now, take the same theory, a surge, but apply it to the biggest demographic conceivable, women voters. It is, I take it you will agree on this with me Catriona, INEVITABLE that there will be a women voter surge in 2016 when Hillary is on the top of the ticket. Some women who would otherwise not bother to vote, will show up to cast a vote. There will be a women voter surge. And differing from the racist vote in 2008, there will be no measurable 'anti woman' vote against her. Yes, there will be a big anti-Hillary vote, most Republicans hate the Clintons, but not any 'anti woman' vote and its quite possible that the Republicans put Fiorina on their ticket, only boosting the women's vote even more. The issue now is not, whether there will be a surge in women votes, as there definitely will be one. It is whether that will be big enough to cause a wave (or indeed a tsunami).

If there CAN be a wave, even perhaps in an exceptional case that can never again be replicated, the first woman President, then Yglesias's whole article loses its value and instead, it serves to lull the Republicans into a false sense of security. Note, as a separate minor squibble, Yglesias falls into the trap that you and I have discussed often and we, you and I, agree on this point - that midterm elections have a different voter turnout to Presidential elections. If Yglesias compares the Republican performance of 2014, a midterm, to 2012, a Presidential election, there will of course be a decline in voter turnout, which hurts Democrats the more. That map he shows, that is the change related to turnout. That AUTOMATICALLY reverses in the next election, when big turnout will be a factor helping Democrats recover many, most, or even more of the seats they lost in the midterm. And then in 2018, the Republicans can recover some of those again. And that means, even in a NORMAL election, the Republicans would be facing losses in 2016. That is before we look at how lopsided the Senate is in terms of seats being contested. And that is before we consider the Women Wave of 2016. The Republicans should have worked the past 4 years to reduce the gender gap, in anticipation that Hillary may be their rival. Instead, the Republicans have ignited women's issues in useless, factually silly and absurd theater now with Planned Parenthood (all court cases have ruled in favor of PP when those silly videos were the evidence to cut their funding) but everything up to and including Trump's attacks on Megyn Kelly's menstruation cycle. There was a massive gender gap against Romney in 2012. That GAP should have been shrunk deliberately by the Republicans. Instead, the GAP will grow bigger for 2016, because the Democrats have embraced women's issues and the Republicans have fought those. Now, combine a larger gender gap with a surge in women vote, and remember numerically there are more women alive than men, and women vote more reliably, this alone makes it a wave election. Then, add demographics on the Hispanics, and the huge voting gap on the Hispanics that Romney had in 2012, and add both the increased voting age population of Hispanics, and now their increased participation due to Julian Castro definitely being on the VP ticket on the Democrat side, possibly Cruz or Rubio (or both) on the ticket on the Republican side. Definitely, also the Hispanic vote will surge in 2016 to an unprecedented level. And they too vote far more Democratic than Republican. Yglesias's article has a lot of good points, I mostly agree with it. The Achilles's Heel of the article is the assumption that a wave cannot form in 2016 because Obama is the incumbent. That may have historical merit, it will not hold for 2016. But when that women's vote comes as a wave, it will crush all the other assumptions he made and the Republicans will suffer all up and down the ticket, in the wave. As I predicted last year in my blog article, and as EVERY single item that so far can be measured, out of that article, so far, has also come true.

So much on the article. Now, on your other points. Agree that Trump as nominee would bring House into play. Also understand that the GOP knows the disaster they would face, and are ratchetting up the pressure against him, but trying to thread that needle, of doing it that 'gently' that Trump won't sulk and take his marbles and run as an independent candidate instead. Note, Jim Webb just noticed he actually is not a Democrat either, and he floats the idea he might run as an Independent. What would that do? Jim Webb as Independent would not greatly damage Hillary core support but would draw some votes yes from her, but Jim Webb the former Republican and war hero, would draw much more from disgusted Republicans who hate their nominee (whoever it will be, there will be plenty who are disgruntled by whoever ends up standing at the end). While Webb cannot win the Presidency by any means, he could even find enough mid-ground independent support (especially as Hillary has surged to the left) that he could get into the TV debates. IF so, he could take 5% or 10% of the general vote. Note, his candidacy would further boost the general election vote (wave election, all up and down the ballot, would benefit Democrats, not Republicans) but most of all, if Jim Webb was already campaigning as an Independent, and Trump felt he was mistreated by the Republican Party, then Trump could be more willing to run as an Independent too. And then Hillary wins 50 states and takes the House and gets a filibuster-proof Senate on top of that. And the Independent run by Trump, if Ted Cruz is blocked from the Presidency but as my model says, Cruz has the easiest path to the most votes - then it could rip the Tea Party (renamed Freedom Party) from the Republicans in a total break, and Ted Cruz would run as its nominee - or the Freedom Party could build a ticket with Trump and Cruz as their ticket (Trump on top).

On the Brokered Convention, I agree, Rubio has best chance of being the consensus candidate and leave the Tea Party furious. It could be a Rubio-Cruz ticket, but what if Cruz had more delegates. He'd never agree to be VP. If Cruz is on top of the ticket, regardless of whether Trump (or Webb) runs, it will be a rout where the GOP loses the House and Hillary wins 40 states flipping Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, Arkansas, Indiana and some random other states. Cruz would spend a lot of time just keeping Texas, which would find a huge surge in Hispanic voter registration, and would flip from a solidly red state to a purple 'battlegound' state into the next cycle of 2020. Rubio might still save Florida as the only battlegroudn state this pairing could win, in that disaster as a dull silver lining of a massive hurricane stormcloud.

On Cruz, his best 'luck' would be to 'lose' enough, to finish second or third in the nomination contest this year, but to be picked VP. Then he could have the full national name-recognition tour of being VP, introduce himself to the nation as the Republicans' fresh face and future, and a proud Latino too, while the loss in the election to Hillary would be 'faulted' to the top of the ticket of course, whoever that would be (Cruz, Kasich, Fiorina). Then next time Cruz would be the clear front-runner and he could run as the first Hispanic on the top of the ticket, against 12 years of Democratic tyranny and the early but plenty of scandals and over-reach that Hillary will have committed in her first term of office. Rubio in 2020 after a VP run now, would be a far stronger candidate. It would seem like a shame to 'destroy' his chances to ever run again, if he ran in 2016 and brought about the huge losses that will come in 2016's wave election for Hillary.

When I write this, that NBC poll is now out. Trump support stabilizing at that 24% range and while NBC measured Carson growing support, he isn't still on par with Trump (some previous poll had them within one point). So Trump is not going down but Carson is gaining, it means that is a slower path to Trump losing his lead, but also, this latest Bush-Trump feud on 'he kept us safe' again, ignites Bush and his supporters, and creates a bizarre 'Twilight Zone' spectacle for all who watch normal news coverage in the world, and not only Fox News.

I get the point, fully. There is a short-hand in conservative language, so when someone says 'W Bush kept us safe' they do not mean W Bush kept us safe all 8 years, because everybody knows the terrorist attack came on September 11, during his Presidency. But they MEAN he kept us safe AFTER the attack. There were no more successful (Islamist) terrorist attacks on US soil. Yes, the terrorists attacked many times in other places and killed Americans too, and other terrorists did strike in the US but Islamist terrorists did not succeed in another spectacular attack after September 11. In that way, AFTER the attack, W Bush did keep the USA (mainland) safe. But now, it is so well known, as a mantra, that many conservatives abbreviate that language into 'Bush kept us safe' which is ridiculous to any neutral outsider (like an Independent voter, there are more of those than Republican voters). Bush did NOT keep the USA safe, September 11 happened eight months into his Presidency and he got ample warning that Osama Bin Laden was planning a major strike, in full hindsight of Osama Bin Laden having hit the World Trade Center previously with the huge truck bomb that exploded, but did not bring down the building (I remember the subway after the blast, I lived in New York at the time).

So I understand how Jeb Bush and his supporters can honestly believe, that what Jeb said was 'true' and cannot be attacked. But because he used the shorthand version, he did not start by saying 'After the September 11 attack, my brother kept us safe' he rather used the shorter version - that is DUMB. It opens him up to ridicule by the general electorate and if he is the nominee, this sound bite will run on endless loops in TV ads by Hillary's team and her SuperPAC which so conveniently connects Jeb Bush to his idiot brother, reminds all Americans about how much they hated W Bush in the end, how it was Obama who got Bin Laden (and Hillary was Secy of State at the time) and portrays Jeb Bush as a reality-denying delusional fanatic. Trump is totally correct in drawing this fight and prolonging it. What is BIZARRE to me, is how the mainstream media ignore the facts and give Jeb the benefit of the doubt in this.

If Jeb was run by a smart campaign, he would have come out right after the debate and said, Jeb misspoke, he meant 'after the attack, my brother..' and that would be over. Now its part of the narrative of Jeb being tied to his brother, and of Jeb being 'his own man' while all his foreign policy experts are the delusional clowns who advised W Bush. We will be greeted as liberators.

Talking about Jeb, what is it with his masochistic need to prod the biggest blunders in recent US politics. Now he's again talking about Gingrich's Moonbase. He should stay away from any of the failures, he has enough of them in his own family closet. The longer we go, the more Jeb is exposed as a paper tiger candidate. And he was supposed to be the strongest. So was Scott Walker, who already folded. The 'Strongest field ever' by Republicans now is represented by Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Dr Ben Carson and Donald Trump. This is much more close to Romney's clown car of 2012 except without the one strong guy, Romney as the only sane voice in the room.

Tomi Ahonen :-)


"The Achilles's Heel of the article is the assumption that a wave cannot form in 2016 because Obama is the incumbent."

I think what he also misses is the demographic discrepancy that has been growing for decades. There is a large "reservoir" of non-GOP voters that have been disenfranchized in various ways. When they get access to the polls thing can start moving fast.

Tomi T Ahonen


Very good point. That is more like a dam breaking, unstoppable. So for example the gerrymandering advantage that has proppped up extremist GOP candidates. Their views are toxic to the general electorate but if you stack the race so that in your gerrymandered district the voters are mostly Republicans, you can never be 'too conservative' Then, when that gerrymandering is dismantled, you've been the Congressman for the extremes, that will lose in the first 'open' election that you face, when the districts are redrawn. And obviously the Democrats have learned their 2010 mistake and are now working in various ways to undo the gerrymandering advantage. The student vote suppression is another one, the anti-poverty vote and all the changes to limit early voting, etc, are all part of that package. If the modern Republican party truly believed they had the 'best message' they would want MAXIMUM voting. But you are correct, that current world is the opposite they are adding to a dam that is about to break, the higher they get it before it breaks, the worse the damage will be - to future elections and the Republican brand. Their objections to Obama's attempts to bring comprehensive immigration reform - and being against his executive order about the Dreamers - that is poisoning the Hispanic community support against Republicans for at least a generation. Its the largest minority demographic. Short-sighted idiots.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen

To all

The GOP race gets interesting for the CNBC debate at the end of October. CNBC gave its eligibility requirements and their polling requirement is 3% averaged from six specific polls (ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Fox, and Bloomberg). They will round up, so 2.5% is the actual limit. And they have a time window. It closes tomorrow. So currently ABC does not have a poll counted in, but ABC may release one later today or tomorrow. Bloomberg has a poll in, but that is a month old, they might get a new one in tomorrow.

Based on the 5 polls that currently stand, the same 10 candidates will all make it in, so CNBC Republican debate 'adults table' would have 10 candidates: Trump, Carson, Rubio, Bush, Cruz, Fiorina, Huckabee, Paul, Kasich and Christie. But Kasich and Christie are on the cusp. If an ABC poll comes out (but no new Bloomberg poll) then either will need to score 2% to make it in. If they score 1%, they are out of the adults table and have to go to the kids table debate instead.

If the Bloomberg poll is updated today or tomorrow, then their magic number is 3%. at 3% they are out, 4% they are in. That would be against their recent polling. But if BOTH polls come out either today or tomorrow, ABC poll and a new Bloomberg poll, then their 'combined percentage' is 6%. They need any combination out of those two polls that gives 6% or more, if they get 5% they are out. So I mean, one poll gives 4% and the other poll gives 2%, that would be combined 6%. Or if one is 5 and the other is 1. Or of both are 3. Or if one is 6 and the other is 0. But combined 6% or in other words, an exact AVERAGE of the two polls at 3% not lower. 2.5% averaged for the two (meaning 5% combined) would kick that candidate out of the adults table.

But its one day to go.. exciting. And funny, their rules for the kids table says Santorum will be debating alone (I wonder how that will be played). So if Christie or Kasich doesn't fall to the kids' table debate, Santorum would have a monologue debate apparently, ie a two hour televised interview...

Interesting times (oh, and the news broke that Jim Webb has dropped out of the Democratic nomination, as I predicted in my Democratic debate review. Now he's pondering that Independent run. Idiot. He is polling at 5% in his home state of Virginia. And he has no money. But he thinks there is a huge grass roots movement to get him to be President? And that the Democrats screwed him with the debate? He bitched about the time he was getting then stole more time to bitch even more about how he didn't get enough time. Crybaby. Go home).

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi all

Haha that was pretty good timing, actually. Today I find Mike Murphy (Bush's guy) talking deep delegate math over at Bloomberg. He's putting the Jeb Bush spin on it of course, ignores Ted Cruz's delegate chances but argues that even from 3rd or 4th place in the first states, Jeb can grab the delegate lead. When? March 15 haha... What did I tell you? More analysis in the rough style of this blog will be coming, but you read it here first. And Mike Murphy only did the Jeb-friendly spin of the delegate math. Here you have the whole shebang... you're welcome :-)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi all

And now, we have fresh polling from Iowa and Wisconsin, with Carson passing Trump. Maybe the long summer-fling with Trump is finally passing and Carson emerges briefly as flavor-of-the-month for November. Trump in his own inimitable style, already Tweeted in response to the polling in Iowa, accusing Iowans of having brain damage. Yeah... that doesn't go over very well, blaming the voters. I remain confident that Trump's peak has passed and by the first elections his support is further down from now, into the high teens. He could still win Iowa with that level, though. But here is an interesting scenario. The trend has reversed. The story of the invincible Trump switches to the vulnerable Trump. Suddenly all pounce upon him. He reacts with ever more vitriolic responses, which erode more of the soft support he had, while delighting and solidifying his core support. The narrative becomes Trump the rebel vs the rest of the party. His support falls to below 20% and keeps falling. The debates see all attacking Trump, he no longer has the novelty factor to be on TV at will, and some of his most recent 'outrageous' statements now seem either dull or truly moronic, even more of his soft support falls aside, and now Trump starts to poll in third place in many places including dangerously - Iowa the first state to vote.

What happens then? One, Trump could throw millions at the game in advertising (like a normal candidate) and tone down his rhetoric (become politically correct) and maybe stabilize his support. But be unlikely to win in Iowa. He could suddenly quit, before the voting starts, and then say he woulda won but they all ganged up against him. And its possible he has a hissy-fit with the party, and resigns from the process, and declares an Independent run anyway. The core of all of Trump's stump speeches, his debate responses, his press responses is, that he leads 'all the polls' and the others are losers. Now, suddenly, Trump's invincible standing takes a hit. This story could reverse, and if the press angle becomes 'Trump loses in another poll' and its the only thing journalists ask about him, this would grate on Trump far more than on anyone else. It is likely to be another never-before-seen spectacle, as the childish side of Trump will be in full view on Twitter, in TV interviews and on the debates. Lets see if more polls come out with similar findings, but this could be an epic stage in the 2016 race.

One note of caution. These two states, Iowa and Wisconsin, are not very friendly to the core Trump message, and those polls may be outliers. The recent national polling suggests Trump's recent polling decline (while still being in first place) had bottomed out and he was back again climbing in the polls. The most recent national poll had him above 30% again. So this moment might not be upon us yet. But it is coming. It is mathematically impossible for Trump to remain on top of all polls all the time, because of his low ceiling. His polling lead is from a very low base of support, only about a quarter of Republican voters - and the fact that 25% can give you a lead, is because there are 15 candidates still alive. As those start to quit the race, it becomes mathematically easier for a few rivals to catch up to, and some to pass Trump. If this was a two-person race, Trump would be at 30% and the massive front-runner would be at 70%. His 'leadership' is not a majority, it is a plurality out of a huge field of rivals. Remember Trump has a low ceiling. Incidentially, a massive gender gap in those recent polls. Men do like him, women do hate him (women far prefer Dr Carson). And obviously, Trump only scores well with the less-educated. The well educated Republicans reject Trump for just about anyone. Fortunately for Trump, the Republican party has become the party of dumb people (and Fox the news channel for dumb people) so he has that base who are attracted to the illogical but bombastic Trump view to the world.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

John Fro

These things never go to convention, and conventions don't really have final say over the nomination process anyway. On the Democrat side the super-delegates can through the election anyway they want in the end--particularly since they dominate the rules committee and can change the rules at any time. On the Republican side the caucus voters can be swapped out numerous times as necessary. However, the big reason is that the process snowballs fairly early with a clear winner by mid-March or so.

Tomi T Ahonen


Did you READ the article? I did the most thorough analysis of the Republican race that has been published anywhere (yet) and only one other political article so far has even touched on this angle, who had VERY similar findings but only on one candidate's view (Mike Murphy's long explanation of the delegate math relating to his guy, Jeb Bush, on Bloomberg a few days ago).

Don't post comments like that if you didn't even read the article! Where do you think I was wrong. I usually delete comments by people who didn't read the full article but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, please read the article fully and come and tell me what you think of what I wrote. If you disagree, tell me why. Don't come here and post generalities which have nothing to do with the ANALYSIS that I have provided here, something nobody else has done into the public domain, but something, that all pundits will be doing about half a year from now. Tell me where I am wrong (or if after reading the article you agree, where you agree)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi all

The big Form Book is now posted. Every stat you could hope for related to the US election. All candidates scored and all the dirt is there too, like who are their personal Billionaires..

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Frederick Pittera

I believe that Donald Trump,despite his bombastic oratory is intelligent enough to recognize
when to tone down. What he has stated is wrong with America is absolutely true and thus far he is the only one of all the candidates that will not stand for failure. After all building a hugely
successful business empire was due to his sheer will to win.No one will Make America Great
Again and, indeed, Richer than ever before as he will. He is all for winning and that is what voters want. He will be America's next President. You can take that to the bank!! You have to be quite brilliant to know how to delegate and surround yourself with the right people....that has been his Trump card. What more can you, the American voters ask?

Frederick Pittera

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi All

Ok.. here we go. Now the Wall Street Journal published the analysis by Karl Rove, which does the delegate math and primary sequence and arrives at the same conclusion as I do. This election might well lead to the 'winner' of the delegate hunt only having a plurality, not a majority, and therefore we may have a brokered convention scenario. Haha, not bad if I do the Republican party road to nomination analysis calculation pretty much the same way as Karl Rove in WSJ no less, but three weeks prior to Rove... His article is here


Tomi Ahonen :-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Available for Consulting and Speakerships

  • Available for Consulting & Speaking
    Tomi Ahonen is a bestselling author whose twelve books on mobile have already been referenced in over 100 books by his peers. Rated the most influential expert in mobile by Forbes in December 2011, Tomi speaks regularly at conferences doing about 20 public speakerships annually. With over 250 public speaking engagements, Tomi been seen by a cumulative audience of over 100,000 people on all six inhabited continents. The former Nokia executive has run a consulting practise on digital convergence, interactive media, engagement marketing, high tech and next generation mobile. Tomi is currently based out of Helsinki but supports Fortune 500 sized companies across the globe. His reference client list includes Axiata, Bank of America, BBC, BNP Paribas, China Mobile, Emap, Ericsson, Google, Hewlett-Packard, HSBC, IBM, Intel, LG, MTS, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Ogilvy, Orange, RIM, Sanomamedia, Telenor, TeliaSonera, Three, Tigo, Vodafone, etc. To see his full bio and his books, visit Tomi Ahonen lectures at Oxford University's short courses on next generation mobile and digital convergence. Follow him on Twitter as @tomiahonen. Tomi also has a Facebook and Linked In page under his own name. He is available for consulting, speaking engagements and as expert witness, please write to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com

Tomi's eBooks on Mobile Pearls

  • Pearls Vol 1: Mobile Advertising
    Tomi's first eBook is 171 pages with 50 case studies of real cases of mobile advertising and marketing in 19 countries on four continents. See this link for the only place where you can order the eBook for download

Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009

  • Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009
    A comprehensive statistical review of the total mobile industry, in 171 pages, has 70 tables and charts, and fits on your smartphone to carry in your pocket every day.

Alan's Third Book: No Straight Lines

Tomi's Fave Twitterati