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

« The Nokia Saga Predictions on This Blog: Full Listing with Links | Main | How is that 10 Dollar iPhone (clone) Prediction Coming, for 2020? Lets do an update »

May 30, 2016



"[The libertarian ticket] could even plausibly win more votes than Trump."

If the Libertarians really get more votes than Trump, this might light up a "civil" war in the Republican party between the religious&racist factions and the "reasonable" Libertarian faction. Interesting times indeed.

"Trump has jumped upon the worst news story his rival has had, and piled one Trump negative story after another, all the while setting up even MORE negative coverage - not of Hlilary - but more bad stuff about Trump in the coming days. How mad is this."

This will only inflate the conspiracy theories about Drumpf being a Clinton double agent. It is true that Drumpf's strategic choice have you chose between labeling them a "Conspiracy to help Hillary" and "Pure Insanity". But with Drumpf, the "Insanity" options seems to be even more likely.

This is what a clinical Narcissist on the lose looks like.

Dave Barnes

The only conclusion that I can come to is: Drumpf™ believes that all the polls are wrong.
He must believe that many (10s of millions) of voters are reluctant to acknowledge their support of him to pollsters.
He must believe that these angry voters are so angry at "the system" that they will vote for Drumpf-induced chaos.
He is betting on silent, angry anarchists.


Trump Rallies Veterans at Annual Rolling Thunder Gathering


Somehow Trump managed to create a successful business empire by doing what he was doing. And had a highly rated TV show.
What you miss is 50% of the American people don't vote because it never matters. Nothing changes
He is talking to those who have not voted since Reagan. His message is to those who see no difference between the parties.
Do read Clinton Cash - Hillary is utterly and completely corrupt. She may win, but that won't change her cash for access.
You thought he would disappear before the first primary.
You thought he wouldn't dominate the primaries.
He will win at least 300 EVs, 40 or more states.
The American people are angry. Betrayed by both parties for a generation. A useless war in Iraq and letting Osama go to nation-build Afghanistan. No jobs. Half on the Government Dole. Crushing regulations. Illegals and "refugees" treated better than citizens or taxpayers. No, not 40, 48 states.
Britain will likely exit the EU.

steve epstein

I am still convinced that Trump does not want to be president.
He just wants to be the best that runs for president and holds rallies.

He would go insane with the actual realities of being president.
The deep state, intelligence services, and Treasury run the government day to day.
He can't change any of it. He may know it, he may not.

He is still shocked he won, imho.

I believe running the rest of the race like the primaries is his way of assuring he loses, but that he gets a 'martyrdom' TV and book deal.

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Winter and Dave

Winter - good points. On the Libertarians, they have been polling nationally in Presidential elections in the 1%-2% range because in all past years, its been 'obvious' that the ticket will lose and it had no chance. If Johnson & Weld can convince REGISTERED Liberatrians themselves, that this ticket has a chance (it doesn't) and will not be a wasted vote, he could get double that support, say 3%-4% (but some Libertarians have already fallen in love with Trump so they will never get it all). THEN there is the big disgruntled Republican part. Theoretically as much as half of registered Republicans may be unhappy with Trump, totally not wanting to vote for Hillary, but perfectly willing to vote for this ticket instead. Lets say thats 16% of the total vote in November. Then we have the Independents and the undecideds in the middle. They will mostly hate Trump, they will weigh Hillary (not trusted) vs Johnson (not tested). A slice will go to Trump, but Johnson could take more of the middle than Hillary (in a perfect case). Most Democrats will vote for Hillary but not all. However, of those who won't, some will now not go to Trump, they would go to Johnson. If we take the best case for Johnson, lets say he gets 3% as actual Libertarians, 16% of Republicans, 15% of the middle, and 2% out of Democrats. He could be as high as 36% of the total vote if the race went kind of 'perfectly' for the Libertarians. Then Hillary would have most of the Democrats (30% of total), a good slice of hte middle (12%), a little slice of Republicans (2%) and win with 44%. Trump would end third with 10%.

I definitely don't see Johnson and Weld getting to 30% in this election (but its WAY too early to make that judgement) but he could do roughly something like Ross Perot - EXCEPT that Perot ran a STUPID STUPID STUPID campaign in 1992 when he DROPPED out and suddenly returned to the race. He could have taken 25% or more if he didn't play that dumb race. Now we have the Ross Perot of this cycle (Trump) playing truly dumb in politics. If the conservatives are given a genuine choice, who actually seems plausible and has some chance of actually winning or at least doing better than Trump - then Johnson could do what Ross Perot should have done in 1992. A 25% range is to me plausible for this ticket, not because they are that energizing or strong or competitive, but because Trump is so bad, yet unavoidable on the Republican ticket. If a major erosion of the 'thought leaders' of the conservatives and Republicans now jump ship to support Johnson and Weld, and they became a kind of rebel team, the Robin Hood campaign, they could get all the love and attention of the media and pundits and see a populism rise which could power them - past Trump. Note, Libertarians are for legal marijuana (aka 'pot') for example - and could easily get grass-roots support by some youth voters now lost when Bernie will be out of it. The Libertarian ticket has no chance of winning in the battleground states or in heavily blue states but if Trumps spends all his effort fighting for the battleground states, the Libertarian ticket could definitely pick up a bunch of red states where the two other candidates aren't showing up or advertising. There, the Libertarian victories would come kind of 'dirt cheap'.

NOW think, while the top of the ticket would lose - in massive scale - it could be similar in scale to the total vote received by Trump. They could be for example, 20% for one, 25% for the other, while Hillary wins with 55%. Doesn't matter which got 25% and which got 20%, suddenly the Libertarians are a 'genuine' third party for the USA for 2018 and 2020 elections and beyond. Everybody starts to take them more seriously. AND most of all, the Libertarian ticket would DEFINITELY win some seats in the House, in a perfect world, they might win a seat or two in the Senate (and/or have a few sitting Republicans flip their seats, and defect from Republicans to join the Libertarian party). The Libertarians would support many of the Democratic ticket agenda items on SOCIAL issues, where they would erode the Republican social issues around the Bedroom police and Bathroom police. Libertarians would not want to increase a minimum wage for example, they would not be 'natural' allies on all Democratic party issues but on some - the various anti-gays, anti-minorities, anti-women legislation (Planned Parenthood, abortion, gay rights in the military etc) they would JOIN the Democratic ticket. It would be a HEALTHY development for US politics if the Libertarian party could get to say 5% of House Seats or more this cycle, and start to grow as a national party. That is only possible if they have a big splash top-ticket race contesting with Trump, regardless of whether the Libertarian ticket finishes second or third.

You know I've been suggesting for years that it would be healthy for the US for a third party to emerge. I thought it would come out of a split of the Republican party. This way, growth of the Libertarians, could be an alternative, which could be a more healthy way actually, where Republicans could maybe notice that their obsessions with obstruction (Tea Party) and the Religious Right, is killing them, and giving rise to the Libertarian party, and it could help the Republicans revive and have a rebirth closer to the roots of their party.

On the Democratic conspiracy with Trump, gosh, it keeps coming back to me. All of his behavior would be consistent with a pact to torpedo the Republican race. Imagine if Trump is nominated, and he accepts the nomination, officially. Then in his big speech on the end of the last day of the Republican convention he runs a speech which sounds like he's still bitter about the Republican rivals, where suddenly at the end of the speech Trump declares, he thinks Hillary would be a better President than he could be (Trump himself) so Trump drops out of the race and concedes victory to Hillary, haha. It will be the most watched Convention speech ever, he would be an instant legend and of course the Republicans would be in instant chaos and call him a traitor etc. Then sometime into years into Hillary's term(s) some minor back-page story has the follow-up where the Clintons reward their friend with something truly astonishing, like one of Trump's sons is named to the NASA team of first men to go to Mars, or something...

Equally, if need not be at the convention (the Republicans could still rush-re-convene and re-nominate Cruz as their desperation candidate) but what about the first (or last) debate, if Trump just uses his last speech, turns to Hillary and says, look, you are simply the better person to run this country, I admit. I will be voting for you in November and urge all my supporters also to join me, lets elect Hillary the first woman President of the USA with a unanimous vote. It would be epic TV theater haha.

But yeah, its FAR more likely that this is just his huge ego and a vanity project gone amok. He is succeeding literally beyond his wildest dreams, and doesn't know how to end it. He desperately doesn't want to release his taxes (he won't). Because he is not anything as rich as he claims. The mess he is getting into is getting ever worse, and all his exits are blocked. The thing he most loves about this run is the mass adoration at his rallies, hence he keeps doing those. They will end instantly when he loses by 20 points in November (could be 30 points if the Libertarians succeed well). After that nobody will take his calls, he will never be on TV shows, nobody will want him on TV shows, nobody will listen to him, nobody will call his name at his events. He will be the loneliest saddest man on the planet (go ask how Walter Mondale feels, he was kicked off the public stage in 1984 and he is still alive).

This thing about his current 'campaigning'. It IS like he was still running in the primary race. California, farmers, bikers, feuding with fellow Republicans - that all would make sense if the primary race was still on. That was Lewandowski's only competence (and even at that he was bad). Manafort has tried to shift Trump to a general election candidate, and 'pivot' to the Center. Trump is resisting that to a remarkable degree. I would not be surprised if Manafort quits or is fired soon. Trump is utterly behaving like a baby and refusing simple basic obvious things that ANY sane candidate at this stage would do.

All that makes the Libertarian play all the more interesting. I want to see, if the pundit class come to the conclusion that Trump is self-destructing but the Libertarians are the only hope for conservatives, and if so, we could see mass migration of Trump's lukewarm support to these two total unknowns haha. PS easy bypass of the Republican nomination contest, ignore the 15 debates and go run in the Libertarian party race instead haha. Won't cost you half a million dollars even where the Republican race cost something close to 50-100 million per finalist.

Clinical narcissist yes, that is Trump. The good news is that after this year the US electorate will be warned of never falling for this gambit again (at least for say the next 40-50 years).

Dave - yeah, maybe, but more than that, Drumpf our genius thinks HE KNOWS better. Its time and again, he will willfully ignore reality, thinking he knows better. Even when facts prove he was wrong, he will then rationalize it to himself that somehow he still 'won' when he lost (like take Iowa and the debate cancelling mess). I don't think he even looks at the polls thinking they're 'wrong' he thinks that Trump himself KNOWS something 'smart' that somehow nobody else knows. That he supposedly is smarter than everybody else. Now, if there is a silent majority who might somehow be 'awakened' to vote, they will not come to vote for a candidate they HATE. They can only appear to vote for a miraculous candidate of unbelievable hope and optimism and love - think Reagan in 1980 or more accurately, Obama of 2008. THAT was a change election. Those voters are now BURNED. They are severely disappointed that Obama did not fix the broken Washington DC and that he could not break partisanship and gridlock. Another con man now to push promises of fixing Washington, will be mistrusted. A HATED person will not drive up the voter turnout. A KNOWN con-man of a long series of failed businesses and ongoing litigation about his fraud at Trump University etc, this is not the man to bring out the silent majority. No, that will not happen. But Trump probably believes that he is the next Ronald Reagan who can Make America Great Again haha. Reagan would reject almost everything that Trump has said. Not everything, but almost everything. Reagan, however, would be strongly aligned with Hillary Clinton both on foreign policy AND domestic policy matters. Reagan campaigned as a conservative but he was in reality a moderate and pragmatist especially on domestic affairs (and a hawk on foreign policy obviously). Hillary is a centrist Democrat on domestic matters and a hawk on foreign policy. There is more overlap of Reagan and Hillary than Reagan and Trump...

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi tz and steve

tz - ok, there is that myth that Trump has built a 'successful' business empire. If he released his taxes, we'd know a lot more about exactly how successful (or not) he has been, but his net worth is nothing like what he claims, Trump himself admitted in court that his brand valuation (the largest part of what he is worth, is the Trump name and its value) depends on HIS OWN MOOD. Some day he feels like he is worth 7 Billion, another day he feels like he is worth 11 Billion. THAT is what he said IN COURT. As to taxes, the last time he reported on his taxes (for a casino licence application) he paid zero taxes. He uses his real estate to avoid paying taxes and he apparently earns FAR less than he claims.

Separately, several analysts have pointed out that of what he inherited and received from his megamillionaire dad, if Trump had just invested that money in standard investments, he'd be worth MORE today. He has run four of his companies into bankruptcies and he is no longer considered qualified to run a casino either in Atlantic City or in Las Vegas, that is how bad he is at his core business. Thats before we look at the various failures elsewhere in his 'empire' from his airline to his vodka to his university (all total failures).

Trump CLAIMS to be a success. In reality he is a total massive failure as a businessman. He is rich because he inherited his wealth and he has wrecked most of what he received. We do not know if he is on the brink of bankruptcy, but considering - he said in public, bragged, about how he personally would donate one million dollars to veterans in February. He hasn't given that. If he is worth ten Billion dollars as Trump claims, the one million dollar donation would be only one ten THOUNSANDTH of what he owns. One ten thousandth. For someone who earns 50,000 dollars, the equivalent cost is giving 5 dollars. Trump has not given that. He cannot afford to give one million because he is NOT worth 10 Billion. He may be nearly broke - the only way we would know is if he released his tax returns - which if Trump was as rich as he claims, he'd be proud to do so. Instead, he is terrified of releasing his taxes because obviously the truth is more visible from there, about just how little he actually IS worth. Most of the buildings he once owned, he has long since had to sell or else borrow against. Incidentally, the loans would be tax-deductable expenses - visible in the tax returns - which would also show just how little of anything with 'Trump' on it, is actually anymore 'owned' by the Trump 'empire'.

I understand tz you honestly believe Trump is a success. Trump has used his propaganda machine to convince many people of that. The FINANCIAL industry does NOT believe Trump. But it is in Trump's own best interest to try to maintain the illusion that he is rich and powerful. If that appeals to you, tz, go ahead and believe in your idol. I am afraid, that as the various investigative journalists dig into the past of Trump, sooner or later we will find out exactly how little he is worth. He might be less affluent than Mitt Romney (which would explain why Trump is so fiercely competitive specifically against Romney).

On 50% never voting, true. In almost all western democracies the voting percentage keeps coming down, as the most severe governmental abuses are eliminated (Kings, despots, dictatorships) and the society builds it safety nets (social security, national healthcare, paid vacations, minimum wages). The USA is deplorably low in its voter participation, but part of that is systematic bias against voting such as the silly idea to separately register to vote (most modern Democracies have all citizens automatically enrolled to be eligible to vote, the state of Washington has started the first automatic voter registration in the USA just now).

Some of the apathy about not voting is yes, related to the 'futility' of it, where Bush=Clinton=Obama etc. Yes, agree with that. Someone genuinely an 'outsider' can help brake that mold and bring in those who usually don't vote. That is not Trump in 2016. That person will not be someone who is hated and despised and a horrible monster of a person and disgusting example as a potential President. That person has to be likable, admirable, encouraging, motivating, hopeful. Like Kennedy in 1960, Reagan in 1980 or most of all, Obama in 2008. Because Obama JUST did this gambit 8 years ago, and ESPECIALLY as there is such a severe disappoitment in how he did not achieve his promised change of ending gridlock and partisanship in Washington, whatever promises ANY candidate now makes to bring huge change from the outside, sounds like 'thats another naive Obama'. It won't bring the wave of sleeping voters. It COULD have worked for Trump in 2004, before Obama tried it, and with enough time since the last time it was tried (this seems to come along every 20 years). But now, it won't work. And where a generic 'hope' candidate might do it in a good year, a 'hate' candidate will NEVER bring a big wave of voters. Trump's method of total negative campaigning of hate will SUPPRESS voter turnout, not increase it. Only those really into voting will care to come out, while the sleeping non-interested voters will stay away, if the campaign is going to be ugly. And this year will see the ugliest campaign ever, because Trump will make it so - and Hillary will not repeat the mistakes of Jeb Bush and others, she will strike back with everything she's got (and her campaign is richer than all Trump rivals put together).

Of voters who have not voted since Reagan? He mostly appealed to older voters. His last election was 1984. That was 32 years ago. Most who voted for Reagan have died by now. Sorry, there is no 'Reagan' wave left to matter - this has been calculated by various voter block specialists early in this cycle when Trump first pushed this idea. Its again a battle against math. The Republicans are the party that clearly failed math at school.

Hillary corrupt, perhaps. I'd say almost all politicians in most countries are corrupt to some degree (some are exceptionally corrupt like say Vladimir Putin) and Dick Cheney is the most corrupt politician in recent US history, far far more so than Hillary. But yeah, the Clintons both, Bill and Hillary are among the more corrupt yes, I agree with that. Its part of the system and the US is exceptionally prone to that problem because its Supreme Court said money equals free speech, you cannot limit money in politics. In most free democracies the election process is short and very limited in its costs so the corruption does not become as systematic as it does in the USA. But any long-term politician HAS to be corrupt or they cannot remain in office, be it Senator, House member, Governor. Thats why term limits are generally a good idea to limit how far that corruption can corrode. And a way around that is to get your family to extend the family business (Daddy Bush - W Bush - Jeb Bush; the Kennedy clan; Ron Paul - Rand Paul; Bill Clinton - Hillary Clinton - eventually Chelsea Clinton; and mark my words Barack Obama - Michelle)

But corruption at the 'normal' level is nothing compared to the deliberate con artist job that Trump is running. He is running a FRAUD against the Republican party right now, and were he to be elected, he'd then bankrupt the USA, like he has done for four of his past businesses. He would be impeached.

Yes, I said I did not expect Trump to contest the first primary and that he would drop out. tz - we have heard that WAS Trump's plan in June when he joined the contest. At that time it WAS what Trump wanted to do, what I wrote I thought he was doing. But if you remember, tz, I was LITERALLY one of the first on the planet to say, wait, Trump could win it - in AUGUST of last summer. Almost nobody else said it back then. I calculated it for you and said, wait, Trump could actually win it. And from that point on - where EVERYBODY had to change their minds about Trump's chances - I was literally among the first. You will not find ten pundits or experts writing in August who said Trump could win it, but I did on this blog. So don't come here saying I was clueless and lost about Trump. I saw EXACTLY what was his actual PLAN, and before Trump himself had thought he could win it - I said so on this blog.

I never said Trump would not dominate the primaries. I said Trump would WIN the primary race and CLINCH the nomination. Go re-read the blog. See my full-primary season preview and note that I got not just Trump correctly, I got the Top 3 finishers correctly AND almost to the exact percent, each of the top 3 for their delegate percentage.

I have been probably the most accurate forecaster of this season on the Republican race. And I said Trump will take the nomination. And I was correct. With that in mind, I also said he will lose by 20 points in November against Hillary (I also obviously correctly forecaster Hillary will win her race). You say Trump will win 40 states, tz. I hope you have the guts to return to this blog to defend that forecast in the Autumn when the polls say Hillary will win in a landslide, and again, to come and admit when you were found to be wrong. Trump may win 20 states if the Libertarian challenge fizzles out. But Trump might win 5 or less if the Libertarian challenge grows strong and they end up with a run similar to Ross Perot. Will you be here tz? I will be. As you know, even when I am wrong, I will be here to stand by what I said, and take the hits whenever I was wrong. Will you be?

Brexit, yeah, looks ominous. Hoping as a European it doesn't happen, would not be surprised if it does.

Steve - haha yeah, me too. There was one obscure story I saw, forgot where, that said Trump actually said he doesn't want to run the country, he wants a strong VP to do that, so he can do the big picture stuff. He is a narcissist, so he wants to be voted the best (ie voted President) but he has no idea what the job is, and if he knew, he most def wouldn't want all that work and responsibility - and BLAME that comes with the job. All the more reason he should never have it.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen


Just noticed on Twitter, a screen grab of a map shown on Fox News (obviously I never watch the Fake News network) which had headline of 15 states Trump is targeting but of course in Foxian logic, only highlighted ten states. (Republicans are horrible at math). Here is the juicy bit. Trump targets: CALIFORNIA, New York, MINNESOTA, MICHIGAN plus Maine, all states that went massively for Obama in past elections and are safe Democratic states. He also targets Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Virginia (all conventional battleground states). If I were to guess, the missing 5 out of the Trump 15 are New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico (not shown on the map but must be the remaining 5, all are conventional battleground states)

So I discussed already the absurd futility of Trump attempting to win New York. Haha. Yeah. Please do go ahead, Mr Trump. California is the most absurd idea, because Trump is not a local. California is 20 points 'blue' ie Democratic - but its BY FAR the most expensive state. Trump has no ground game there, and the Republican party has no ground game there. And if it becomes a TV ad war, Hillary can easily afford to demolish Trump there. Its a highly diverse state, only 63% white, and 18% is HISPANIC.. Its 100% certain Trump will lose California.

If you remember my early bitching about Elop's idiotic strategy going against Apple - you don't fight your rival where they are STRONGEST and you are WEAKEST. That is California. Hillary is up by 17 POINTS in California. This is total madness for Trump to waste any days and any dollars in attempting to win California - please Mr Trump do try, do try, do try. Go tell them there is no drought in California, yes, please do call a US born judge a Mexican, please yes, go campaign in California and try to win it. PLEASE DO.

Minnesota is one of the reliably Democratic states but Senator Al Franken and Senator Amy Klobuchar (both obviously Democrats) will LOVE to have you to punch around in their state - to drive up Democratic turnout in a safely Democratic state.

Now. Part of this is typical pre-season hope of a campaign that hasn't done its homework. As I've written before, every year at this time the Republicans try to convince their voters that Pennsylvania is 'in play' when its not. Its safely Democratic too (its about 8-9 points Democratic this year, so its technically just inside the 'battleground states' at this stage, it will be back to safely Blue by September). The early 'map' is drawn deliberately to be 'wide' because partly you want to test the waters, partly you want to energize your voters and partly you do want to keep your rivals off-balance.

But Trump has been CAMPAIGNING in California and clearly is deeply hoping to fight for New York. PLEASE DO. It will only make his loss worse. He cannot win those states. Ohio, where Trump is behind by 2-3 points, if he fights for Ohio, he can win there. Florida, 2-3 points, that is doable. New York 20 points, California 18 points, there is no chance for Trump to win there. Not in any kind of miracle. It will not happen. BUT California is THE most expensive state to run - please yes please yes Mr Trump do spend your precious little campaign budget by wasting it on California's many expensive TV markets. Please do. Please go waste your campaign time by having events in California. Please do. It will only serve to energize the local California Democrats to fight even harder to hold their seats and get their voter turnout - especially the Hispanic turnout - up, to unseat what remain of Republican members of the House. California's female Congressional power trio, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein will make minced meat of you - even without Hillary occasionally stopping by to blast your moronic positions on anything from nuke weapons to Muslims to the border wall to deporting illegals.

California is such an EXPENSIVE idea, it will be ended among the earliest when Trump starts to narrow his map. But New York may be on Trump's wish list far too long to really harm the rest of his chances.

The smart map is a limited clearly focused 7 or 8 states where Trump has a clear chance, all within ideally 5 points or less, and all relatively close in political emotions (rust belt) or physically (NorthEast) to make his severely handicapped campaign not seem totally outnumbered. So I'd say the smart play is Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire and Colorado. Keep Pennsylvania in play early on until it becomes hopeless. But to waste Trump's own time and advertising and any surrogate time to go fight for Maine (???) or Michigan or Minnesota, come on, these are all hopeless causes. And California and New York - please yes please yes, please yes, Mr I-speak-to-myself please do talk to yourself and decide that is a smart play. PLEASE DO. Nobody wins in a 20-points behind national race in 6 months, as long as the rival does not totally implode. Please Mr Trump do waste your resources on California (and Minnesota and Michigan) and New York, please please please do.

Every day Trump wastes in those states makes it FAR harder to win in Ohio, Virginia and Florida, where the race will be decided. Trump essentially has to win all three or else pick up states where he is FURTHER behind, like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Colorado. Meanwhile Hillary is ahead also in North Carolina, Arizona, and only a few points behind in Georgia, Utah, Mississippi and one of the Dakotas, I think it was South Dakota but might be North. If Trump is not going to defend those states, Hillary can with just moderate campaigning effort flip a number of those states... massive massive election loss where then even if Trump wins Ohio, Virginia AND Florida, he still can't win, if Hillary takes Georgia, Arizona and North Carolina (plus Wisconsin, Colorado, Pennsylvania where she is ahead by more than 5 now). And remember, Hillary is AHEAD in Ohio, Virginia and Florida, she is likely going to win those too, and she has a FAR stronger ground game, the Big Data operation, and a far bigger TV ad budget - plus surrogates galore who are beloved in those states starting with Obama.

Anyway, wanted to mention, there is now a genuine news story (if we can take something 'reported' by Fox Fake News as 'genuine' even where they talk of 15 and only show 10, haha mathematically challenged news, for Republicans). Trump is at least signalling he intends to try to win California (PLEASE PLEASE DO TRY) and New York and Minnesota and Michigan and that state of the most lunatic Governor, Maine with LePage... Here's the deal, I'll let you Trump win Maine if Hillary can win Georgia. Lets trade Maine gives 4 Electoral College votes while Georgia gives 15. Maine went for Obama by 16 points. You go ahead, Mr Trump, you go to Maine and fight to flip a 16 point deficit. You do that. Meanwhile how much easier is it for Hillary to turn the 3 point deficit she has in Georgia into a win - with all the Hispanic and black votes she can turn out now because you are running, with just a modest amount of campaigning. I'll take this trade every single day.

Tomi Ahonen :-)



This election cycle has been an adventure land ride. But maybe we have not seen the best of it. What if....

What if the Drumpf campaign really does implodes, or explodes? Then there are a lot of orphaned voters who hate Hillary too much to ever vote for her.

For these voters there is suddenly, an alternative, the Libertarians! So, what if Drumpf implodes, or drops the election, or advices to vote for Hillary? All these Republican voters can suddenly migrate to the Libertarian ticket which now looks very electable. And if Hillary makes errors, she might have a run for the presidency.

A Clinton versus Johnson end match for the Presidency would be a perfect end for an insane election cycle.


Here is a nice opinion along these lines:

Nicholas Rogers: The Americans should vote for Governor Gary Johnson – the Libertarian Party candidate for President

The presumptive Libertarian Party nominee may be the most credible candidate for the presidency this year. A successful entrepreneur, he built his one-man business into New Mexico’s largest company before turning to politics, where he defeated the incumbent governor as a Republican in a state that was two-to-one Democrat. He was elected on a platform of small-government and individual liberty and he stuck to his principles. He reduced taxes and the size of state government, he fought for school vouchers and vetoed more bills than all other governors combined. He took a state with a significant deficit and left it a billion-dollar surplus. He remained pro-immigration while running a border state and was the highest ranking elected official to call for the legalisation of cannabis.

In other words, he has a strong record of achievement and knows what it means to govern. By contrast, Hillary could not name her chief accomplishment in office when asked and Trump’s key achievement is managing to bankrupt a casino – no mean feat.

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Winter

Good argument yes. In reality its literally a Billion-dollar project to run a national campaign for President. Johnson doesn't have a million yet. Even if he managed somehow to get most of the Republican money to shift to him now, he'd still have to 'fight' the Republican establishment - as a rival PARTY - probably never get - their support in their voter contact lists, ground game etc - meaning its totally game over. He could maybe get to 25% or 30% or even 40%. Hillary walks in with 45% in the bank and would fight for whats left. Trump would still have his loyalists who will vote for Trump even if he goes out and shoots someone.

Its a fantasy scenario. Its not possible for a third party to actually win, because so many of the states are set for that party. A third party can be a SPOILER and in a perfect world, a third party can come in second. Johnson can never win clearly blue states like New York, California, Hawaii or Minnesota. He could steal Republican states if he's lucky - because Trump is weak - so perhaps states like Oklahoma, Kansas, Alabama or Alaska. But battleground states - those are the EXPENSIVE races, he has zero chance. Trump will fight for them (and lose) and Hillary will fight for them - real hard - and win. So a third party can't win the contest. But a third party could come in second, in a 'perfect' dream scenario, and then perhaps GROW to become a serious party in the future, and actually contest for the win. Not now. Impossible... :-)

It is DIFFERENT if Johnson could somehow become the Republican party's official nominee - some weird Convention situation or say Trump is suddenly caught in some nasty financial crime or say Trump has a last-minute heart-attack or something. If anyone incl Johnson (he's a Republican after all) was the OFFICIAL Republican candidate, then they would have the GOP's voter list and database etc to work from, and a 'generic' donor base worth many hundred million immediately and if (whoever) was the actual nominee, at least half a Billion dollars into this season almost automatically. If the candidate was reasonably competitive - and the official GOP nominee - could even hit a Billion dollars still this season.

But while there is an official GOP nominee, in Trump, then the Libertarian rival will be the poor underfunded rebel candidacy - and bearing in mind, Trump will be far less flush with cash than Hillary - no, without a ground game and without the money, you cannot win. And remember, Johnson is not an electrifying super-inspiring inspirational hope candidate. He is as boring as Kasich or Pataki or Gilmore.

But I AM hoping Johnson becomes a viable campaign and will get into double digits. Would love to see him on the debate too (would need 15% in national polling)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi everybody

So why is Marco Rubio suddenly groveling so much and begging for a speaking slot at the convention? He wants back in, he's been on the outside long enough. He wants to run for President again in 2020, and now he wants to be Trump's VP. You don't get onto Trump's short-list unless you grovel very loudly and beg for it, and that is what Rubio is now doing. Whoever is the VP for Trump's epic loss, will be one of the front-runners for 2020. Rubio has had enough time to think it through and now he really wants it. I would not be surprised to see both Kasich and Cruz still make that same calculation.

On Cruz, he has started his repenting on being the ultimate bad-boy, recognising now that part of why he lost to Trump was all those burned bridges to his Senate colleagues, so he has started to rebuild those bridges. He is now campaigning with some of them. A good start. Too late for 2016 but still, Cruz is obviously angling for 2020.

Tomi Ahonen :-)


What a choice this year. Between a c**t and an a****le


Comic relieve:

North Korean state media offers support for 'wise politician' Donald Trump


Trump details fundraising for veterans' charities


Some Republicans start to notice:

Trump's Disinterest In Data Has Some Republicans Worried


Here is an article about the sorry state of Trump's fund raising operations.


Also, from what I've seen so far, Trump strikes me as a very lazy candidate. He doesn't seem to have any desire to study the issues before a debate or an interview. He seems to me totally unprepared in terms of background knowledge on the issues at hand. I haven't seen any pundit talking about this, and I wonder whether my perception is distorted by my bias. What will happen at the debates between Clinton and Trump if the knowledge gap will be as huge as I perceive it? Of course, Trump will answer the questions rambling about completely unrelated stuff, and that should appeal to his core base, but I can't imagine any scenario in which his ratings would not drop after each and every debate.


Tomi, I don't think that if Rubio is given the VP slot he'll be in any better ground for 2020. He already was smacked two times in this race(losing the nomination and his home state). I don't see how spending the next several months condoning Trump's racism, misogyny, etc., just to lost by a landslide in the end, will do him any good. If he were to do that, he would almost certainly be done in the national stage. He should try to maintain a low profile for sometime if he wants another chance, IMHO.

Millard Filmore

There is some speculation that besides Donald being too cheap, or broke, to spend the big bucks ... the RNC has a cash problem of its own.

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