Just How Unprofessional IS the Trump Campaign - When Hillary In Trouble, Trump Hogs Limelight?

So we get to see some remarkable insights into the two campaigns. (obviously this is again a blog article about the US election, not about digital/mobile/tech). Hillary had her worst days this year, from the middle of last week when the Inspector General of the State Department found she had broken rules about emails and was at fault. For a pro campaign and very seasoned veteran politician, Hillary's campaign had a disastrous moment (every campaign has some of those) and it was clearly her worst moment of the year so far (don't fall for any of the Bernie 'moments' her victory was never in doubt so they were never that bad for her). And like a pro in a pro campaign, she went immediately onto the talk shows, put out as much of the fires as possible, then went to lay down low, riding out the rest of the news cycle. Her best hope is for other news stories to overtake this bad news email story, and that it won't grow to be any bigger than it now is.

TRUMP EPIC FAIL CAMPAIGN

The rival to her campaign should play this like a pro. If the opponent is in trouble, get out of the way. Get out of the news cycle. Don't give the news any possible story now, to compete with the big splash that your rival is in trouble. The smart play by Trump was to stay away from everything. Don't even allow interviews of YOU, let your surrogates handle the needling of Hillary about her emails. Stay away from the press, don't give them any chance to talk about anything relating to you. No, that is too much to ask of Trump. He had to jump in, with NEW silly stupid idiotic damaging stunts to a) draw attention away from Hillary's emails; b) bring up problems you've had in the past; c) bring up new problems for you; d) prepare the press to keep your problems in the spotlight into the near future as well.

Trump is massively behind Hillary. Before Trump clinched his nomination (the last time polls were reporting fairly the race) he was behind by close to 10 points. RCP had Trump behind by about 7 points. Then when Trump clinched (or more accurately, his rivals both conceded defeat) then every time that nominee gets a polling bump. It does not signal that the race has become suddely tight. Hillary will get the same bounce after June 7, when she has clinched. The real race is about a 7 point race which is more than what Obama beat Romney in 2012 and nearly what Obama beat McCain in 2008. Thats the reality right now, except some idiots are falling for the one-sided polling anomaly which happens EVERY election when one side clinches before the other. And it always returns to approximately the same it was, when the other side also clinches. So the reality is, that Trump is losing badly right now. It is FAR worse than the national poll, because in the in-state polling, Trump is behind in every state that Obama won in 2012 plus he is behind also in North Carolina (which Obama lost in 2012 but won in 2008) and he is behind in Arizona (which Obama lost both in 2008 and 2012). Trump is not ahead in the in-state polls of ANY state that voted for Obama in 2008. So Hillary is currently AHEAD of where Obama was in 2012 and by a VERY healthy lead indeed. What Trump needs to do, is to work hard - and CAPITALIZE on the rare occasions where Hillary's campaign is in trouble or making mistakes.

What was Trump doing last week? He wasn't done fighting with Republicans!!! He posted a silly video attacking his past rivals John Kasich and Ted Cruz. Why. What possible good does that serve Trump? It angers supporters of Cruz and Kasich - Republicans - who must be convinced to come vote for Trump. He HAS to stop attacking other Republicans. There is absolutely no way Trump can possibly convert 1-to-1 lost Republicans out of his tirades, to new Independent (or Democrat) voters, or somehow that 'silent majority' who isn't voting. He may attract SOME with this silly strategy but he is alienating many more. Its stupid. Plain and simple. Its stupid. But he wasn't done. Then he went and attacked New Mexico's sitting popular Republican Governor, Susana Martinez. Trump felt slighted that she would not come and join him at his rally. So now Trump not only starts a new feud with a sitting Governor of a battleground state, he is also upsetting all those demographics she represents - she is young, she is a woman, she is a Latina. This is sheer madness, why on earth would Trump go do this? He has to work now EVEN harder, to try to convince youth, women and Hispanic voters that no, he doesn't hate them all. By the way, the smart play - even if Trump was not actually considering her for his VP slot, would be to suggest she is the type of person he wants. But instead, Trump is fighting with her. A new fight, started by Trump, that was now on the air about the same time as the Hillary email news broke.

TRUMP STARTS NEW FIRES

So while the newsmedia SHOULD be devoting all their time on Hillary's troubles because they can't find Trump, he has gone into hiding, instead, Trump feeds them one story the more bizarre after the other. He goes to California (why on earth is he doing an event in California? California will never vote for a Republican, its a safely blue state. This is totally wasted effort). In California he holds a big rally - with farmers !! Why farmers? Farmers are about the most reliable 'employment' class for Republicans this side of wall street bankers. Farmers VERY steadily vote Republican and the only time you bother with courting the farming vote is the PRIMARIES when you need to win say a state like Iowa. Trump is behaving still as if it was the primaries. When there still was a race, and Cruz was fighting to try to win California, then it made still sense for Trump to schedule events there. Not now. Now he should be in Ohio, Virginia, Colorado or Florida. A battleground state, not in California. This is time he will never get back.

What did he do in Califronia. Well, he managed to create more problems for himself, both now and into the future. First, at this event, he made that stupid claim that there is no drought in California. Great way to get yourself in the media - for all the wrong reasons - again the press can have a field day quoting all the drought specialists who say yes, actually 75% of California is in a drought. The Drought has been going on for years. It is severe in more than half of the state. So next, Trump of course suggests that he can fix it, there is some little fish which is now the 'fault' of the water shortage (another debunked myth and conspiracy theory). And what of the farmers? If Trump suggests he as President can get the water to the farmers - that means taking water from neighboring states - Nevada, Utah, Oregon and Arizona. So 'pandering' to California farmers at their event will NEVER win Trump the state of California - BUT the Democrats in neighboring states can now use Trump as the danger, that if he is President, he will come and steal YOUR water, to give to his pals the California farmers. Is Arizona in play? Yes. Is Nevada a battleground state, of course it is. And polling from safely-red very consevative Utah - which NEVER votes for Democrats - says Hillary is tied in Utah. (Oregon is safely blue for Democrats anyway). So one stupid comment on a LOCAL issue where the US President has no say anyway - now does not help Trump in any way but it will be run in neighboring states against him and be used to force local Republican politicians to side against Trump (because nobody is going to suggest giving THEIR water to go to California's farmers, these would be local farmers in Nevada, Arizona, Utah etc who would then have to give up THEIR water). And this means, Hillary's nasty email story - a story which is well-worn and tired - is now competing with a Trump story about the weirdness - doesn't Trump KNOW what everybody else has known for YEARS that there is a massive drought in California, so bad Governor Jerry Brown had to take extreme means of water rationing statewide in response... This is an undisciplined campaign.

But while Trump was in California laying more mines into the minefield he has to later walk through - he also decided to pick a fight with a judge who is presiding over his Trump University case. Trump feels he can try to bully a judge by going public about his case. Good luck with that, schmuck. His attorneys had requested that various statements and documents about Trump University would be sealed, where some press had requested to see them. Now the judge (of course) ruled to unseal those documents. Maybe the judge would have decided so anyway. But first, by Trump making a public ruckus about it (and essentially threatening the judge) he of course made it very easy for the judge to rule against Trump. But secondly - far more damagingly - now the MEDIA are FAR MORE HUNGRY to study those documents. Trump not only drew attention to his Trump University lawsuit - while Hillary has her worst moment of this year - Trump ALSO guaranteed the Trump University 'sealed documents' will receive EXTRA scrutiny in the coming days. Trump knows this is all bad news, he has been trying to get the court case dismissed or postponed. Incidentally, Trump says regularly that the judge should recuse himself but Trump's attorneys have not made that motion in Court. So his LAWYERS know its not a valid case - but the more Trump pushes this point in the media, the more he angers the judge. Thats totally the wrong move. But Trump is not guided by a professional campaign manager (in charge) and whatever Manafort manages to do, is peripheral at best (and apparently there is a big internal war going on between Manafort and Lewandowski). So maybe California was an isolated case?

Sunday. Trump is in Washington DC (oh, yes, that famous 'battleground state' which votes 90% Democratic. THE single MOST DEMOCRATIC voting region in the nation. For Mr Outsider the dumbest thing to do, is to hold a campaign rally in DC. But hey, who am I to advise the Trumpster. So what was this about? He held a huge event at the State Department with a bunch of email specialists perhaps? No. Its a biker event (Harley Davidson type bikers) for veterans. Now. Bikers. White MEN very very racist, often Nazis, who will vote for Trump no matter what happens. These are in terms of activity/hobby probably the single most dedicated Trump supporters, even more so than the gun lobby. Why on earth is Trump at a biker rally? Oh, its probably that same clown political advisor he took in, who used to work on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's campaign. Walker had an unhealthy obsession with Harley Davidson motorbikes. Ok, we get the connection. Except this is the GENERAL election now. You have WON the Harley rider vote, MONTHS ago. That is the LAST place you should be wasting you time campaigning, at a Biker rally, in Washington DC. But its biker-veterans. So first, this of COURSE brings up the bad press about Trump and veterans in this election cycle. So now there is PLENTY of reason to revisit what stupid stuff Trump said about John McCain. Then there is MORE reason to dig into the missing million dollars that Trump promised he'd pay out of his own pocket to veterans. And the gossip about how much he overpromised and underdelivered with his publicity stunt veterans event earlier this year. All this eats time away from the bad news coverage of Hillary's email problems. Meanwhile, did Trump now put this issue to rest. No. He said that on TUESDAY he will release the list of what veterans groups received the millions he has raised. On Tuesday? So the story will linger on for three days now, and run into four at the least, before this story is extinguished from the news cycle. 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.

Oh, and on veterans? His supporter Bob Dole now has said, Dole agrees with McCain, Trump should apologize to the veterans. And Lewandowski is on record now saying, Trump won't apologize. Will the media love now digging into this, what will Dole say about that, what will McCain say, and how will Trump react himself. This is an incredibly undisciplined and unfocused campaign, abandoning blatantly obvious opportunities as they (rarely) come.

On Tuesday of next week, Hillary will clinch her nomination (she's only 94 delegates shy of the nomination and June 7 awards nearly 700. She only needs to win about 15% of the delegates to clinch. She is ahead in most polling in most of the states that vote that day). This week is literally the last week when Hillary is this vulnerable - when Bernie is still in the race and thus Trump's attacks would have maximum effect. Yet in the 12 days left between the day the e-mail story broke, Trump has wasted - no, not wasted, destroyed - the news cycle for 4 days and has set the newsmedia ready to put plenty more of Trump BAD news into the remaining days. This is totally bizarre in terms of campaigning. Any professional campaign manager would have advised Trump to behave to the best interest of WINNING in November. But Trump doesn't listen to experts, because Trump likes to talk to himself instead, as he said. And once again, we see he not only hurt himself with these steps, he also did not do what he NEEDS to do (fight in battleground states where he is BEHIND) and he also gave Hillary much-needed cover so the email story won't get much attention.

At some point between now and November, Trump will accept a profesional campaign manager's 'full control' of his message and campaign appearance schedule. That is not yet what Manafort has now. Clearly. It is madness to waste one day of Trump in California, and another day in DC, those states will NEVER vote for him. Its madness to speak at events for farmers and bikers - they will always vote for him. Its utter madness to pick a fight with the judge who can decide to make the Trump University scandal court papers public; and its madness to draw attention to his troubles with veterans. Hillary's team must be thanking the stars for Trump. How much Trump has taken the pain off their worst day of the year and demolished that story from the news cycle.

When Trump starts to behave rationally, he can do a lot better than he is doing now, but so much damage is done already, he can never recover to even footing with Hillary, not even close. But now, he is only making the November loss worse for himself. There are only 161 days left to Election Day. Trump has actually wasted 2 of those days not doing what he HAS to do, campaign in the battleground states (did I mention, Trump is BEHIND in all of the states that Obama won in 2016, Trump cannot win unless he flips half a dozen of those states in 2016). 2 days wasted means one percent of his remaining time was thrown away. That will never come back. No professional campaign manager lets a candidate do this level of damage to himself.

Meanwhile on the other side of the fence. If you're in trouble, who can you call? Ghostbusters? Wouldn't it be nice, if you are in trouble, that you could just call your buddy, the current President of the USA, who happens to be on an international trip - and ask HIM to jump into the story and help deflect the bad news away from you, by attacking your opponent. Yeah. I betcha that was coordinated, the Obama attack from Japan that hit Trump saying that international leaders are 'Rattled' by Trump. Did you see the timing? US sitting Presidents almost never talk domestic politics while abroad. Obama however, can't WAIT to get to campaigning with Hillary against Trump. And he has of course waited, patiently, letting the Hillary campaign decide how to utilize the largest bully pulpit on the planet. Now when Hillary asked (or perhaps Obama sensed it and offered) this was perfect timing to bring Obama into the story, to take some of the heat away from Hillary. Smart play by team Democrats, whoever actually initiated that idea.

Obama will be a formidable surrogate for Hillary, likely more powerful than husband Bill. And he will love doing it, spending most of his energy attacking Trump and the sitting Republicans of Congress. Trump's response? Why didn't Obama accuse his Japanese hosts about the attack on Pearl Harbor. Yeah, thats REALLY smart diplomacy again, Mr 'I talk to myself'. Japan killed 2,400 Americans on the attack on Pearl Harbor (mostly military but also plenty civilians). The USA killed 140,000 in the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima (all civilians). I think this is quite the wrong time for the US President to mention Pearl Harbor but obviously Mr 'I know great words' would do a fabulous job in international diplomacy haha. Its exactly moronic statements like that, which has those foreign leaders 'rattled' by Trump.

BAD CANDIDATE

So yeah. Trump is a remarkably flawed human being. Fine. We have however, learned again new stuff about him. Clearly, Trump is not listening to Manafort at least fully. But Politico now reported that the in-fighting in the Trump campaign has revealed that Trump is the kind of boss whose mind goes by whoever talked to him last. Like a child. So that bodes well for his run haha. Any advice he gets, is forgotten the moment he meets the next advisor or campaign staffer or friend or colleague or just random supporter at a farmer event or biker rally. This is why Lewandowski has gotten back into favor. Manafort was trying to run a campaign - that means a TON of management work which does not involve - and should not involve - the candidate. But Lewandowski was relegated to be the 'front man' on events - meaning he is sitting in the limo and at the hotel and on the jet with Trump every day. And Lewandowski thus gets in that vital last word. Which would be good news for Trump if Lewandowski was even marginally proficient as a national campaign manager for the general election except clearly he is not. So we have issues like Trump firing the first person that Manafort hired (a pro). Where Trump's team is MASSIVELY understaffed AND with vacancies galore - the last thing they need is to REHIRE more of people that are now being fired !! Plus it makes it EVEN harder for Manafort to get ANY competent professionals to sign up - Trump may well embarrass those too, and fire them two weeks after Manafort has hired them.. Oh, and press relations. The Trump campaign still doesn't have anyone as Press Secretary. Nobody is managing his press or media. That buffoon Hope Hicks is clowning around on various TV shows as his 'spokesperson' while the vital job of press secretary is still not even filled.

A 'normal' Presidential campaign will have something in very rough terms of one quarter of a million man-days of campaign work that will be done in the approximately one year that the campaign exists. Its a LOT of work. Trump's team has done perhaps one tenth of what should have been done up to now, and needs to be at full staffing to do MOST of what needs to be done in the remaining time. Trump will most definitely fall short of what is considered a normal major campaign run, by something like 20% at least, maybe even more. Meanwhile Hillary's campaign has already worked more man-days than ANY campaign in history (and not because Bernie gave her any real resistance, most of her campaign effort has been aimed at November). But conservatively estimating, the Hillary 2016 campaign will probably complete half a million man-days of campaign work. Her campaign will outwork Trump's by a factor of about 3. Who wins? If the race were truly tied, and one side puts in 3 times more work - then that side most definitely wins. Except the race is NOT tied, not even close. Hillary is far ahead, and yet, her team is putting in MASSIVE amounts of more work than Trump's side is. And we are seeing the effects. She is ahead in EVERY single state that Obama won in 2012 plus two that Obama lost (and very close to tied in half a dozen more states - including very very VERY reliably Republican states like Utah and Mississippi). 

So then we learn about Trump's delusion. He wants to run in New York. Now, its fully understandable, that for a man with Trump's ego, he wants to win his home state. He put a lot of effort to win the primary for New York (even though he was safely ahead in all polling). But New York is a safe Democratic state. It voted for Obama by 28 points in 2012, by 26 points in 2008 and even in 2004 where John Kerry lost to sitting President W Bush, New York voted for the Democrat by 18 points. There is NO hope for a Republican to win in New York state. It is the fourth most blue state in the union. There is no chance, zero, zip, zilch, none for ANY generic Republican to win New York. Being a New Yorker does not help Trump because so too is Hillary Clinton except she was their Senator winning twice, while Trump is disliked even in his home state. The Republican voter base is in rural New York state, ie 'upstate' where Hillary was their Senator, and they dislike Manattan-dwellers and big city folk (like Trump). New York state is one of the most diverse states in the union, only 71% was white voters last time (this is bad for Trump) with both a high black and high Hispanic minority. He can't win that state. The Real Clear Polling average for New York state head-to-head has Hillary up by 22 points. This is an utterly hopeless mission. But Trump wants to hire staff to fight for New York. Yes, go ahead Mr 'I am so smart, I went to Wharton'. He is behind in EVERY actual battleground state, and his campaign is massively understaffed with open vacancies not filled. But Trump knows better, he wants to waste hiring and staffing and funding and campaigning - to try to win in New York. Lovely. I can't wait to see how long that lasts and how much of his total effort went into that bottomless pit. New York state is one of the most expensive states to run in, haha, go ahead. Will be a delight to see all that effort wasted.

A billionaire tends to hear what he wants to hear (he fires those who say things he doesn't want to hear). So if Trump says - I want to fight for New York, he probably will get that, no matter how much his whole campaign staff will be aghast. So if its a dozen states, and some of them are not that expensive to run in - New Hamspshire, Iowa, Wisconsin - if the Trump campaign puts a real effort into New York state, it would deplete at least 10% of their total resources (on a total waste on a race he cannot literally cannot win). Lets see if someone can talk sense into the man who is so smart or will he talk to himself instead. But again consider the rest of the party - they see a total utter comprehensive train-wreck of a campaign and a candidate who is utterly out of control. The sensible thing is to run away as fast as you can - and like Susana Martinez - refuse to be seen with this doofus. Now what about all those politicians who are in TROUBLE in those battleground states - but who HAVE endorsed Trump? If Trump spends 10% of his time and money and polling etc in New York, thats AGAIN less of what in any case was a weak campaign in terms of support - to the vulnerable down-ticket candidates feeling the pull of the anchor that is Trump, weighing them down and drowning them.

Bur I want to come back to that idea of deciding based on what the last person was who talked to you. That is a HORRIBLY bad manager indeed. I had one boss like that and it will drive you nuts. There will be many who will be resigning because Trump is so utterly disastrous as the Candidate, where he promises you in YOUR meeting to do it your way and then he talks to the limo driver or the usher at the event next, and decides to go opposite of what he just promised you. So it means the top guys HAVE to hang around Trump all the time - it means THEIR work is FAR less effective - this from a team that did none of its homework in the Primary season - and is behind - and has not hired all the staff it needs - and is short-staffed and underfunded for the general campaign - with almost no usable surrogates to take much of that load EITHER. Meanwhile on the opposite side is the most prepared candidate in history, who over-prepared in the primary season, has the largest staff ever assembled, plus a super-powerful Big Data system to optimize and maximize their effort - run by some of the best staff ever in political campaigns - while being the richest campaign ever to run with funds to spare - and with the strongest surrogate team in the history of Presidential politics.

The morale at the Trump campaign is bad. It will keep getting worse. They can't hire the best staff who won't join the losing effort. Some who are there will bicker and complain. Trump will be firing many more, often for trivial reasons - or in cases where all in the Campaign see the fired person was right and Trump was wrong - this further saps morale. That is all before the REAL polling disaster becomes evident, after the Conventions, into August. Hillary will be safely in a 10 point lead by then, and that means the rats start to escape the sinking ship.

Then a few words about campaign budget and financing. So yeah, now the myth of Trump self-funding is long gone. He spent months telling that candidates who take money are then beholden to those who contributed, but now Trump will take in something nearing a Billion dollars in money - with all the strings that come attached to those donations. So far, so bad. But it gets worse. He has not much time left, why is the SuperPAC still a mess? His various surrogates are promoting two rival SuperPACs and Trump hasn't clarified which it is that his supporters should donate to. This was all done very fast and not with much sensible planning. (Once they exist, the campaign is not allowed to 'coordinate' with its SuperPAC but thats a very nebulous rule). But on Trump's main campaign funding. He's decided he won't build a ground operation of his own - he will rely on the Republican party to do that for him. Sounds nice. Why didn't every previous candidate do that? Because it means Trump will not be in control. And that Republican party machine has to support ALL the candidates in that state, from Governor to dog-catcher. They CERTAINLY do not have the budget to do a proper job of it for the Presidential candidate and his/her needs - that is why EVERY past campaign, the Presidential candidate set up his/her own organization (in the battleground states obviously).

But now comes the added mess of Trump. Many local politicians do not WANT to be seen anywhere near Trump. While Hillary will be loved by all Democrats, who will HAPPILY re-organize their calendars to be NEAR her when she is in town, with Trump, the GOP party organization in that state has to be mindful of every individual candidate who doesn't want to be seen with Trump, and try that extra layer of hassle in organizing events and press etc. What about local fliers, advertising, lawn signs, robocalls, etc. The local party is now saddled with MORE work (because Trump won't be bothered) which takes away from their own guys that they KNOW - who often will hate that Trump can't be bothered to pay his own way and hire his own staff - and where will those loyalties go - to try to save the own guy rather than fight for Trump - which will only get worse, the more Trump will be under water in the head-to-head polling against Hillary. This is a very very VERY bad way to go about the campaign, and I am expecting Manafort to eventually convince Trump that they have to set up their own staffing in at least the most important battleground states like Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado. They will NOT get 100% out of a shared resource with the party. Thats just dumb. Usually its the OTHER way, where the locals hope for more help from the 'rich' Presidential campaign, to pick up some of the extra effort for THEIR local guys, not this way.

LIBERTARIAN MESS

So then we get the last unexpected bonus and silver lining on the thundercloud for Hillary's team, the Libertarian surprise. Its not that much a silver lining as gold-pressed latinum. This may turn out a mirage, but this might be the year of the Libertarians hitting major percentages, into high single digits or even double digits in the general election in November. THAT is more than gold. That is more than platinum for Hillary. In her worst week this year, she may have received the best present at its end. This week which otherwise was so bad for her. Gary Johnson, the ex Governor of New Mexico, was just selected as the candidate of the Libertarian party. He is a Republican. His Vice Presidential running mate is another Republican former Governor, William Weld who ran the very Democratic state of Massachussetts. And these two have already been very vocal critics of Trump. In some polling of a three-way race, Johnson polls at around 10% already - while nobody knows him in any way. Now they will be in the news at least for a short while, and many who are very conservative and or very Republican voters, but who really don't like Trump for whatever reasons, and can't stomach the idea of voting for a Clinton, will have two solid but moderate Republicans - both ex Governors - to vote for. The Libertarian party is the only other ticket which has access to all states, so every voter will get a choice of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or Gary Johnson (while each state will have usually a dozen or so also lesser 'third party' candidates, but none that are on the ballot in every state). If Johnson can get his polling to 15% - a distinct possibility - he'd also get to join the TV debates.

Most years a third-party candidate has no chance, and this year too, Johnson won't be winning the election. But recently Ross Perot in 1992 did get 19% of the vote, and at one point in the race he was ahead of both rivals. Bill Clinton eventually won in 1992, with 43%, over incumbent sitting President Daddy Bush who got 37% of the vote. Many Republicans feel that Perot 'spoiled' their race and Daddy Bush would have won if Perot was not in it. The exit polls however very clearly show that Perot took votes from both sides and Bill Clinton would have won in any case. Then in year 2000, Ralph Nader ran on the Green Party ticket, and while he only got 3% of the vote, it did damage Al Gore enough, that (after a recount and Supreme Court intervention) W Bush was declared the winner. Even a few points of the total election might swing it one way or the other.

Libertarians can find some appeal with both Republican and Democratic voters but they generally are far more aligned with Republicans. There is a rather well defined Libertarian wing to the Republican party (which used to vote for Texas Congressman Ron Paul and now supported, but perhaps only in a lukewarm way, his son Rand Paul). I would think, in very rough terms, about 75% of Gary Johnson's votes would be drained from Trump and 25% from Hillary. Give those +/- 5% either way and its always a net damage to Trump now that Johnson definitely will be on the ballot in November. But now the game becomes, how much of the 'stop Trump' movement and 'never Trump' movement which may be left, inside the Republicans, will shift to supporting Johnson and Weld. I'd guess Mitt Romney will be there rather quickly and so probably will be the Bushes.

Because they are both Republicans, Johnson and Weld provide the 'cover' for conservatives to fairly vote 'against' Trump but not actually vote for Hillary to win. In reality, any vote by a Republican to the Libertarian ticket will be effectively a vote helping Hillary defeat Trump (and similarly any Bernie supporters who will end up voting for the Libertarian - or any other ticket like Green party - will be voting to support Trump against Hillary). The Libertarian ticket has zero chance of winning this year, Johnson is about as exciting as a candidate as George Pataki, but he can well get into the double digits in his support. And because they know their core voters will be disgruntled Republicans, the pair, Johnson and Weld, are very well motivated to attack Trump at every chance they get. Meanwhile, for all those Trump-haters who really want Trump to fail comprehensively (the Wall Street Journal just ran an editorial where they argued Trump NEEDS to fail in epic manner so the party learns not to nominate candidates that are this bad - the point I've made for months) they are likely to announce their support of the Johnson-Weld ticket in 'timely' manner, not necessarily coordinated, but to give a general impression of a growing wave, so some will deliberately wait for an opportune moment WHEN to announce, to keep up that feeling of momentum.

Trump is behind. What he absolutely cannot sustain, is for erosion more from his side than Hillary's side. A perfect third party candidate in this year, for Trump, would have been Bernie. The worst possible candidate to run, this year, for Trump, is another Republican. We have to see how this plays out, but this Libertarian ticket may well be the worst news to hit the Trump campaign this whole season up to now. But we don't yet know. Lets see a few weeks of does this story pick up steam, does this story have 'legs' or will it fizzle out in the next few weeks and be dead by the Conventions. I do think, that with all the feuding and trouble that Trump has gotten himself into, for all those who actually do not WANT to be on Trump's VP list, all those politicians will likely want to now go with the 'sane' Republican alternative - ie the Libertarian ticket (as long as that ticket fits their political views - Libertarians are totally against the bedroom police and bathroom police aspects of the Religious Right, so I don't expect Ted Cruz to really like this option but John Kasich should find this ticket far more palatable than supporting Trump).

Then there is the money. The Bush clan has tons of financial clout. If they come in support of the Libertarian ticket, that could give them some significant money. Then there is the Koch brothers network. One of the Koch brothers once ran for VP on the Libertarian ticket, and they have been very warm to Libertarian views in the past. They hate Trump, here they have two moderate Republicans, why not go support them. Its plausible that this ticket really takes off, and gets Johnson to something around 20% or even 25% of the final election in November, and as they'll be a professionally run campaign without the sillyness of Trump, if they run roughly neck-to-neck in total national vote percent, say both get 22% (with Hillary winning in epic landslide at 56%) then its VERY likely that Johnson wins more STATES than Trump while they'd have as many votes. Trump's base is very loyal but widely spread. The Johnson-Weld ticket could focus and pick up a bunch of red states where they could slightly outperform the 'generic' Trump effort - while Trump would have to fight (and badly lose) in the battleground states (where Johnson would not attempt to win).

If the Libertarian ticket is strong enough to qualify for TV debates ie Johnson polls at above 15% by September, then Trump will be fighting a two-front war where he is the underdog, utterly outgunned on both fronts. And where normally the in-party fighting ends at the Convention - this would be that weird year, where the Republican and Conservative 'Stop Trump' movement could actually run until November, uttely totally completely destroying any chances he might have otherwise had. Even if in November Johnson only takes 10% of the national vote (halfway between Ralph Nader of year 2000 and Ross Perot of 1992) then Trump is down another 5 points against Hillary. If Johnson could get to Ross Perot levels - and assuming they continue to mainly attack Trump from the right, appealing to conservatives and in mostly the red states - then at Johnson on a national 20% vote level (with Trump say 25%) its possible Trump wins NO STATES and Johnson wins a handful (Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho) and Hillary wins over 40 states flipping such 'red' states as Texas, Mississippi, Utah..

We don't know yet. But this is a development that could be utterly devastating to Trump 2016. If they play this right, the Johnson-Weld ticket could be the 'real conservative, real Republican' ticket and the 'adult' and 'rational' choice against Hillary. They could even plausibly win more votes than Trump. But if they get as much as 10% of the vote, then Trump is LUCKY if he escapes with a 20 point loss to Hillary. If these guys climb above 10% in November, it pushes Hillary's victory into truly 'catastrophic' drubbing of more than 20 point loss to Trump. 
 
This is yet another aspect I did not see coming in this truly amazing year, and once again, the stars are aligning even more perfectly for Hillary. A strong third-party run also means higher turnout - that is always to the Democrats' advantage and the disadvantage of Republicans. This means even more trouble for down-ticket candidates. And those will then be making their various choices of who is going to campaign with Trump or who will go join the rebel alliance of Johnson-Weld. Meanwhile the Democrats will be united like never before, safely ignoring the Libertarians and focusing like a laser on Trump. Its fear of Trump which will drive up Democratic voter turnout. And remember, its not enough for Hillary to win, she has to flip both the Senate and the House to have any chance to enact her political agenda. She needs to have huge coat-tails, to bring in that huge change in Congress.

Comments

[virgil]

cornelius so let me guess, you work for SIE? :D (Good guess about my country). CDR is/was not a right-wing party, despite of what they claim. The american "Liberals" are really social-democrats by european naming convention. So yeah, how they name themselves and what their ideology is (if any), those are different questions.

Anyway, like I said before, I don't cheer for Trump, and I do consider him dangerous. And I don't care much about political correctness.... I'm not insulted by Tomi calling me an "idiot" - I just find it sad to watch the cognitive dissonance. My challenge to him (to accept writing an "I am an idiot" self-disparaging blogpost) was meant to open his eyes, to make him realise that he's not willing to do that, because his current "Trump" writing is not about him being convinced that Trump can't win, it's about him being in disbelief. "This cannot be happening. No way!". It's ok to be in disbelief, it's not ok to confuse the situation and think that you are certain about the outcome. Our brains are fallible like that, they often misinterpret signals to "protect" us.

[Winter]

@Virgil
"But when you call all the people who don't agree "idiots", even when they have sound arguments (and a track record of predicting well this election, based on said arguments)... I say you're no longer just testing your model"

I think the correct word to use by Tomi would have been "fools". However, "fool" has been out of fashion it seems and the word idiot has absorbed its meaning.

The meaning of "idiot" has a connotation of a (severe) intellectual disability. Quite a lot of the supporters of Trump indeed show signs of being situated on the lower (long) tail of the IQ distribution. But most are just uneducated. and some are even smart. What they all show is a willingness to NOT learn anything about their idol and to NOT question his past behavior and current words.

A person who considers her/himself beyond doubt and who believes s/he does not have to entertain the possibility that s/he might be wrong used to be called a fool (See Barbara Tuchmans famous book "March of folly"). That does exactly describe any Trump supporter I have heard or read.

I would also like to point out the English proverb: "A fool and his money are easily separated". I think there really is no better way to characterize Drumpf's followers, and the GOP.

What I think Tomi is saying when he describes Drumpf's followers as idiots (aka fools) is that they refuse to look at the data or facts. They just seem to blindly fall for a man that can only be described as a career con artist by anyone who even has had a cursory glance at his past. And Drumpf being a winner? He managed to bankrupt a casino. How is it even possible to bankrupt a casino?

Tomi does not have to consider himself a "fool" if his prediction proves to be wrong. From the very first blog post on this matter he has always explained how he came to his predictions and where his uncertainties were. He can be wrong, but he would be wrong while he was thinking hard himself what he could have done wrong and what he could do more to improve his accuracy. That is the exact opposite of what a fool does. What you and other distractors are saying is that he should simply believe in the power of Trump's personality and brilliance.

[Winter]

@Tomi
"Trump continues being Trump and its like his house is on fire, instead of trying to put out the fires, Trump pours gasoline. Yes I am happy that he is this dumb."

If the speculations are true that Trump has a Narcissistic personality disorder, then we should remember that this is a mental disorder. Narcissism is in the same league as Psychopathy/Sociopathy. These can be severe disorders that can wreck the lives of their sufferers (and people around them) because they will time and again make decisions and engage in behaviors that are directly against their own interests. They literally cannot stop doing things that will harm them. Often because they are unable to see reality and to gauge the effects of their actions.

Intelligence does not help here. You can be a genius in destroying yourself. Trump has squandered a genuine fortune acting the role of a superior deal maker.

[Millard Filmore]

@virgil: Tomi is following the numbers, numbers that have been reliable for many election cycles. You have noticed that this is not a normal year.

I flip many times between the optimism of Tomi's projections and shrieking in horror at what the future may bring.

Since this is not a normal election, perhaps Hillary should ease up on the intelligent policy discussion and instead, crassly provoke Trump, causing him to wig out on national TV.

[Winter]

@Millard
"Since this is not a normal election, perhaps Hillary should ease up on the intelligent policy discussion and instead, crassly provoke Trump, causing him to wig out on national TV."

Or hire a psychologist/psychiatrist with experience in narcissism to study Trump and then provoke him in ways that do not make her look like mud wrestling with a pig. I still consider the "small hands" moment a jewel, but something that has to be done by a suitable pawn that can be sacrificed.

[Winter]

Obviously, I was not the first to notice that Trump could be attacked on his mental disorder:

The best way to destroy Trump is to exploit his psychopathology (NPD/APD)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027876475

The Mind of Donald Trump
Narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity—a psychologist investigates how Trump’s extraordinary personality might shape his possible presidency.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

But, as Michael D’Antonio writes in his recent biography of Trump, Never Enough, Griffin’s most vivid recollection of the evening pertains to the theatrics. It was as if the golden-haired guest sitting across the table were an actor playing a part on the London stage.

“It was Donald Trump playing Donald Trump,” Griffin observed. There was something unreal about it.

The same feeling perplexed Mark Singer in the late 1990s when he was working on a profile of Trump for The New Yorker. Singer wondered what went through his mind when he was not playing the public role of Donald Trump.

[Millard Filmore]

@Winter: Right. Arguing the insanity of defaulting on the national debt will not push Trump off the stage. Sure, I get carried away sometimes. Hillary can take the high road with the policy stuff, to keep Democrats loyal. Trumps base will never give him up, but the easy breakthrough will come when the independents, smart Republicans, and habitual Republicans get a peek at him wigging out. There are people more skilled than I that can make that happen.

There is an embarrassment of riches for attack points. Trump is currently very defensive about his university. Oh, and his BILLIONS, plus his greatness. Related to his wealth but not touched on yet is his vast debt to foreign banks. And then there is always his hands. Let's not forget also ... lordy this list will never end.

Its really perverse to attack a sick person like this, but jeepers ... he's going to set the world on fire.

Anyway, unless Trump is carried away in a straight jacket, I think @virgil has a valid concern.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi virgil and cornelius

Whats with the Romanian connection on the blog? I was JUST in Bucharest two weeks ago haha... weird coincidence. Are all of our readers Romanians?

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi virgil

Ok, fair stuff. Lets do a long set of replies about the Trumpenator and his Trumpists. First, I do appreciate it that you virgil are here talking with us, even when you are clearly unhappy with my characterization of the race. I also appreciate it that you revealed who is your fave candidate and obviously you hope he would win.

So lets start. First off, some of Trump's supporters are what I call in short-hand as 'idiots' or morons etc. The fair way to put it is, that some of Trump's supporters are simple-minded, not well educated, and often brainwashed. It doesn't mean all of Trump's supporters are dumb and it doesn't mean there aren't plenty of dumb supporters for other candidates and most definitely also for Hillary (and for Bernie). BUT the LARGEST PORTION of the US voter public's dumbest slice - least educated, least knowledgable and most believing ridiculous myths - are Fox viewers of all TV news channels (Fox is also the most unreliable news network in every year of measurements). The least educated, least knowledgable and most believing in ridiculous myths, of the voters of either party - are with Republicans not Democrats. And of Republican voters, the least educated, least knowledgable, and most believing in ridiculous myths - are Trump supporters. This is consistent across ALL measurements the past 12 months. Consistently the 'dumbest' voters were attracted to Trump.

That doesn't mean all Trump voters are dumb. It doesn't mean you can't be smart and still support Trump. It doesn't mean there aren't dumb supporters also with Hillary (and Bernie and Cruz and the others) but the LARGEST slice of the US electorate, who are at the dumbest and least-informed - and MIS-informed - are Trump voters. They are as a block, the most ill-informed voters of the US electorate today. All surveys say this, that is a fact. What makes it better for Trump is, that these voters are exceptionally well brainwashed to believe that the media are deliberately lying to them - so they are 'immune' to the truth and facts. This electorate existed well before Trump came along, and at least in part, is the result of the Sarah Palin run of 2008 that helped bring them to the Republican party but some of them were there even before. A good slice of the Tea Party is also of this ilk.

I do not mean that you virgil are that dumb. There are plenty of VERY valid, smart, intelligent, considered reasons to not want to vote for Hillary; there are plenty of principled reasons not not want to vote for Democrats in general; and there are also some valid reasons to admire Trump for the FACTS (not the lies he peddles) and to like the REAL Trump, not this farce he is playing on TV right now. There are plenty of Trump supporters who dismiss much of what he has said - believing/seeing that Trump cannot mean that, but like other aspects of what they believe Trump is and/or have seen in Trump's past (or believe there to have been). A good example is the myth that Trump is a brilliant businessman who built a multi-Billion dollar empire. If you believe that story, and you admire a successful businessman like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg or Warren Buffett etc, and if you honestly believe Trump did build his empire and is genuinely a successful businessman worth what he claims - then good for you. I happen to seriously doubt his actual net worth, and I believe he has run his empire in a ruinous manner and his management past is a disaster, not to the degree of say Stephen Elop ex-Nokia but at least at the disaster level of Carly Fiorina of HP. But thats a judgement call.

Also, I did think, 13 months ago, back in May of 2015, that if Trump would ever run, he would be a 'typical New Yorker Republican' ie a moderate. He would not want to ban abortion, he would not hound gays, he would be for reasonable environmental laws, gun laws etc - similar to most New York Republicans like Rudy Giuliani or George Pataki etc. If you think you don't want an 'extreme' conservative like Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee or Scott Walker as your candidate, but still want a Republican, I can see where Trump is appealing, on his 'history' and past. Before what we saw the past 12 months. He was a Democrat in the past and an Independent, he would most likely govern as a moderate, not as an extremist. If that is appealing to you, I can't fault that at all. And again, Hillary is no angel, she is one of the most machiavellian and conniving politicians ever and most definitely her email was set up just so she can control it, rather than the State Department, etc. She has a reputation for being untrustworthy because the Clintons have so often been bending the truth. I can understand that Republicans will say - but nobody is as bad as Hillary would be. Then the current Supreme Court situation of course hangs in the balance, and some who seem not to worry about the Constitutional crisis of not letting the sitting President nominate a judge, then yes, if you can get past that, then yes, Hillary would mean a liberal shift in the Supreme Court and ANY Republican including Trump would nominate a conservative Justice instead. I can see that this could be an 'absolute' issue that overrides any qualms about one candidate's nasty words about Mexicans or silly ideas of a useless but ridiculously expensive wall.

There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons to support Trump. I totally see that and it doesn't mean anyone is somehow 'inherently an idiot' if they support Trump, just like they are not inherently idiots if they support the wild fantasies of Bernie Sanders haha. But there IS a significant - and large - minority of US voters who are brainwashed. They were brainwashed before Trump emerged - to believe Obama is illegitimate as a President, that he is a Muslim, that he was born in Kenya, that Obama will invade Texas, that Obamacare has death panels, that the Obama economy (and Obamacare) has lost jobs, etc. These are lunatic views. These are ridiculous idiots, totally incompetent people who really should not be allowed to pick the next President. I am sure you do not believe any of those myths. Not all Trump supporters are like that, but like I said, Republicans do not have a monopoly on dumb voters, there are ALSO dumb voters on the Democratic side. But Trump has attracted the most of those. They are the moron voting segment. They are too dumb to recognize the contradictions in Trump's positions and too mistrustful of the media to ever discover the truth. But they are registered voters, they will be counted and their misguided votes will be part of the total electorate. Luckily for us, as a planet, those dumb voters are not the majority and by them alone, Trump cannot win any national election.

But that is a DIFFERENT level of dumb or idiots, compared to 'experts' and analysts and pundits - who don't know MATH. There is nothing wrong with supporting a favorite politician whether that person wins or loses. But the pundits and analysts and experts - they have to go by the math, and THOSE are real idiots who refuse the obvious. Hillary's lead over Trump has been HISTORICALLY high. Compared to Bush vs Gore in 2000, compared to Bush vs Kerry in 2004, compared to Obama vs McCain in 2008 and compared to Obama vs Romney in 2012 - Hillary has held a STRONGER lead in polling - essentially TWICE as strong as the next-strongest lead - over a period of about half a year - than any of those before. Almost every published pollster, forecaster and expert says Hillary is AHEAD. So say the polling averages, so say the betting averages. That is where my qualms come with the 'real idiots' such as people around Trump and many Republicans. Trump is TODAY already in a historic hole, behind, behind FAR MORE than McCain was at the same point against Obama, etc. And Trump is now digging his hole deeper.

There is nothing wrong with having a favorite, and hoping they can win. But its foolish to look at clear math, and see the problems, and DENY them. That is what I report on this blog. Yes, I have grown a BIG disgust with Trump the person and candidate; but the MATH of this election has never been in doubt. I don't particularly like Hillary, but the MATH has been obvious for two years now, she is going to win in November, and her victory will be a landslide. She will be flipping the Senate, House (and coincide with the flipping of the Supreme Court balance too) which means she will bring about HISTORIC change to the USA, and at this point, most of that is for the good - paid maternity leave, raised minimum wage, lower-cost college, reasonable limits to gun ownership - those kinds of changes have HUGE national support - they are popular laws, and the Republicans have been obstructing them and that will now end. I don't mean that Democrats are in any way inherently better (or worse) than Repbulicans, but in the past 8 years, the Republicans became the obstructionist party - by design - and that is silly, and luckily for humankind and for American citizens, that is now coming to an end after this year's election.

So the MATH is inevitable. That is what I signalled in 2014 when I wrote my first preview of this 2016 Presidential election, when it was so clear. And THAT is where I take issue with 'the idiots' who think Trump has a chance. I don't mind you virgil hoping for Trump to win. I am here to tell you, he will lose by landslide, and I can explain the math why. I don't do it because I want to hurt you, I do it because I can see the math very clearly - and if that IS the reality that emerges, if you (and other Trump supporters reading this blog) can get an EARLY warning of the pending loss, you can prepare for it, mentally, so it won't hurt that much when it happens. Its exactly like the Microsoft Windows Phone end. I saw when it happened, I reported it, and then I monitored the situation - to verify IS MY THEORY still valid. And it was. As it clearly is also with Trump.

With that, we can of course have a good discussion about what is he doing, does this or that campaign strategy makes sense or not, and what might be the end-game etc. I am not perfect, no forecaster can be. I will make my share of errors - BUT differing from most, I will IMMEDIATELY report, when I see that my forecast is starting to go wrong. I give you ADVANCE warning if my forecast no longer looks solid (such as say Tizen, in smartphone OS wars, when Samsung started to issue delays. I was IMMEDIATELY here saying, guys, the Tizen slice of my OS wars forecast now is in doubt, because Sammy has delayed...).

Ok, more coming

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi virgil

So now onto the math. First, I don't know if you knew, but I've given my forecasts of the 2008 and 2012 US Presidential elections on this blog (the blog did not exist for the 2004 election) and I got both times 50 out of 51 voting states/districts correct. This is as good as the 'gold standard' of political forecasting, Nate Silver of the 538 blog. He also missed out on one state both years. Then for this year, 2016, I did in January a forecast of the Republican race where I correctly forecasted not only the final Top 3 finishers, in the correct order, but I had each within a few percent of where they finished, by the time the race ended. I even called the dates when they were mathematically eliminated. I had Trump within a percent, Ted Cruz within 4 percent (and Rubio who has more delegates than Kasich, within 2 points). I KNOW my math, when it comes to US Presidential elections. If you say Trump will win, I ask when did you publish any past election forecast or is this just your deep desire and despair, you HOPE he will win, and are grasping at straws. I go by the math.

This is why. I wrote in October of 2014 that Hillary will win by 10 point landside in 2016. That was before we knew who she would face in the PRIMARY race (and she had not even formally announced IF she would run) and LONG before Trump announced he'd be running in the Republican race. Hillary will win by AT LEAST ten points in 2016, now in November (with the exception obviously of some act of god like her having a heart attack etc). Why is the MATH saying this? Its not Tomi who says so, it is REPUBLICAN PARTY math.

The Republican party lost the 2012 election - Romney vs Obama - by 5 points. Then the Republican party did its 'autopsy' of why it lost. In that autopsy, the Republican party said - they CANNOT WIN in 2016, unless they do certain things to improve the party's standing. The two most important things - become more attractive to female voters, and become more attractive to Hispanic voters. This is not Tomi Ahonen on his silly blog saying so in 2016. This is not me saying so in 2014. This was the REPUBLICAN PARTY saying so after the humiliating loss in 2012. And essentially EVERYBODY in the party agreed, that is what they have to do. (Also obviously so did Democrats, they 'feared' this was what the Republicans would do, and of course so felt ALL independent, neutral analysts who said, that was the smart play).

It is as close to a fact as we can have in an 'art' which is not pure science, like politics. EVERYBODY agreed in 2012, that the Republicans will lose in 2016, unless they start to improve their standing with women and Hispanics. They even calculated the math - because of the CHANGE in demographics (Hispanics are the fastest-growing sub-group of voters) it was not enough for the 2016 Republican party nominee to win the same as Romney did in 2012, about 30%, the Republican party had to get with Hispanics up to 40% support - or they WILL LOSE. This is not me saying so. This is what YOUR party told your leaders four years ago. They were so adamant about it, they published the results, so all Republican politicians would know what has to happen.

Since 2012 the Republican party did not stop its war against women, it did not stop its hostility to Hispanics. This is why it is certain they will lose the Presidency in 2016. That was not about Trump. That was before Trump. That was not even about Hillary in 2014. It was clear that the 'generic' Republican would lose in 2016 - even if it was Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren who was the Democrat. Why? Math. Because the Republicans clearly calculated what they had to do to win - then they did not do it. Instead, they made their matters worse. It is 100% certain, that the 'generic' Republican will lose by more that 5 points to the 'generic' Democrat in 2016, because the Republican party knew what it had to do, but refused to do it. Instead they made their situation worse. This is math. This is undeniable. And ALL generic polling supports this. Among women, and among Hispanics, the Republican party and its candidates have scored RECORD low ratings. Meanwhile the Democrats score RECORD high ratings this cycle. The election result of 2016 is not in doubt. The math is brutal and predetermined, the Republican will lose this election - because the idiots of the party decided to pour gasoline on a house that was on fire.

Now go to 2014. I made an awesome forecast on October 2014, about the 2016 election, predicting Hillary's 10 point landslide victory (even Obama's 2008 win was only 7 points against McCain). Absolutely everything I predicted in that blog from nearly 2 years ago, that can be measured up to now - has come true. Including that Obama's favorability will bounce back to above 50% and he will be eagerly campaigning for Hillary - almost unprecedented in recent history that a sitting President actively campaigns for his successor, etc. NOBODY has a number out from 2014, who predicted a 10 point landslide for Hillary (her victory will be bigger than that). If I end up correct, that Hillary wins by 10 points or more - that is THE most accurate forecast of the 2016 election from 2014 by anyone. And yes, ALL the issues listed in that blog, that can be measured by today, have come true, from Hillary's huge war chest to her mastering of the debate stage. She will be winning this Autumn by 10 points at least. Why? MATH.

Because the Republicans published their 2012 autopsy and clearly identified what had to be fixed - and then they instead made those matters worse - it is CERTAIN they will lose by MORE THAN 5 points. How much more, that is a guess. Is it 1 point worse or 4 points or 15 points worse, anybody can guess how bad it will get. But there is another aspect.

While Republicans said they HAVE to improve their favorability among women and Hispanics (and actually made them worse) - on the OTHER side the Democrats have done EXACTLY that. The Democrats in general, as a party, in Congress, Senate and the Presidency - and their candidate in particular - Hillary - have all worked to IMPROVE their standing with women and Hispanics. Hillary as the first-ever woman on the top of the ticket will of course get a boost in total female voter turnout. That is above the natural advantage that Democrats have historically had over Republicans. All polling show it. What about the Hispanics? Of non-Latin politicians, Hillary Clinton is THE MOST beloved 'white' politician EVER measured by Hispanic support. She tops the number two all time, who happens to be her husband Bill. Ever from their days in Arkansas, the Clintons have worked the Hispanic community to be their friends. The Hispanics call Hillary 'La Hillary'. She is the HIGHEST rated non-Latin politician EVER measured within their community.

Because the Republicans actually DAMAGED their own standing with women and with Hispanics, and because simultaneously the Democrats nominated the first woman and most popular non-Hispanic white person, it means that the GAP in total voting support - which was 5 points in 2012 - will grow DRAMATICALLY bigger. Will it be 4 points more (ie a 9 point landslide) or 8 points more (Hillary beating Trump by 13 points) that is of course speculation and open to debate - but the NUMBERS will be MEASURABLY BIGGER in favor of Hillary, vs what Obama did in 2012. She will win by SIGNIFICANTLY more than 5 points. I said, based on very deep math on every state, voters, demographics, etc - (before we knew Trump would enter the race) that Hillary adds at least 5 points above what Obama got in 2012, so she'll have a 10 point landslide. The MATH is not in doubt. She WILL have a bigger victory than Obama did in 2012. These numbers are UTTERLY CONSISTENT in EVERY DEMOGRAPHIC POLL done in the past 12 months. She scores SIGNIFICANTLY better than Obama.

Now. Will that be 10 points or maybe only 8 points or 15 points, that we can argue about. I cannot know. I trust my math, I've been darned good with the Presidential election forecasting (but I totally missed it on the midterms of Congressional elections in 2014). But it will be more than 5. And I don't mean 6, I mean SIGNIFICANTLY more than 5. Trump cannot win this season, not because he is Trump. Its because the Republicans poisoned this well, and meanwhile the Democrats nominated the woman who best captures EXACTLY what the Republicans abandoned.

This is like Samsung taking Nokia's market share in 2011-2013. The math was crystal-clear if you just did the numbers. Apple could not take that market. It had to go to Sammy. Similarly, there is no way that the Republicans can take this election. Impossible. It is what REPUBLICANS warned about in 2012. And ALL polling, hundreds of polls, all say this. TOTALLY. Consistently. And Hillary with a HISTORIC advantage bigger than any of the polling leads of the previous elections.

You can say virgil that you think or hope that Trump will win. In most years, I'd say, there is x percent chance or y percent. This time there is zero chance. The math is brutal. But yes, if Trump wins, I will be on this blog saying 'I was an idiot'. I promise you that. But it won't happen (and obviously we bar an act of god like Hillary shot or Iran suddenly launching a land war against Saudi Arabia or something that truly is an outside event that tumbles the whole world).

Now, with all that said, we can of course study this election and the candidates, and consider what is going on. Who is doing better or worse than expected. But I said in 2014, the math is undeniable. Hillary wins by a bigger margin than Obama in 2012 because of math. Because of stupidity of the Republican party which did not follow its own medicine, and because of the smarts of the Democratic party which actually did exactly what their rivals suggested that must be done. This all was TOTALLY before we consider your guy, Trump in the equation.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi virgil

So lets add Trump to the math. All of the above is either generic stupidity by the Republican party, which prescribed its own medicine, then refused to take it; and Hillary as the near-perfect candidate to capitalize on the once-in-forever opportunity that the Republicans have presented. That is roughly a 10 point landslide loss to any 'generic' Republican, whether Jeb Bush or Scott Walker or Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or Mike Huckabee etc. Maybe a Marco Rubio might cut the loss a little bit (Hispanic, lose by 9 points instead of 10) or a Carly Fiorina (before she went nuts imagining those baby parts inside her head) might lose by 8 points instead of 10 being the rival woman on the other ticket (in both cases, assuming President, not VP slot). But it was clear that the Republicans will lose. Undeniable math, based on REPUBLICAN reasoning and their published math.

Now, what does Trump do. First, yes, I was among the many who said, Trump won't run. Because he had teased us for the previous 3 election cycles never actually running. And I was wrong. But so was EVERYBODY else. You want to mock me for that? Then yes, when he started, in June and July of last year, I said he can't possibly win. So said EVERYBODY else. You wanna mock me for that? When EVERYBODY else also said so.

I was literally the first analyst/pundit/expert to CALCULATE the math, that wait, actually Trump COULD win the Republican nomination. I did that in AUGUST of last year. Literally the first to calculate it. I said clearly, he won't get the MAJORITY of Republican votes in the primary season but because the field was so wide, with so many distinct rivals appealing to different groups, and because of the difference now in campaign financing - it was POSSIBLE for Trump to win with only a PLURALITY of the votes, not a majority. That is EXACTLY what happened. When Cruz and Kasich quit the race last month, Trump had only taken 42% of the Republican votes. He had never gotten to a majority of his support - yet he won the nomination - with a plurality. I was LITERALLY the first person to calculate that scenario and publish it - on this blog, last August. Are you virgil going to mock me for believing like EVERYBODY else, or are you virgil fair-minded to admit, yes, Tomi is the first analyst to calculate the Republican party end-game delegate math, that Trump could win by a plurality. I do know this game. I know math, I know numbers. Numbers are my buddies.

There were plenty of true idiots who said from June (and before) that Trump can win. They are idiots. They think Trump can also win now in November. They are mathematically challenged. Trump could NEVER win the MAJORITY of the delegates. That was not possible. But if we ignore the idiots, there is nobody else, who CHANGED their mind, who first said, reasonably and rationally, that Trump can't win - then said, wait, he can win - who did that BEFORE ME. Is this not integrity and SLAVISH obedience to the MATH. I went by 'conventional wisdom' with all the early talk of the 'ceilings' etc for Trump - but I was here, on this blog, reporting on the MATH the moment it became possible, wait, Trump could win it. And I outlined EXACTLY the type of scenario it would take for Trump to win. He could not win the majority but this year, with a long race, he could actually take it with a plurality. As he did.

Now virgil, for your mocking of me not knowing US politics, will you admit, that was actually a VERY insightful moment, a true contribution to the 2016 (ie 2015) race that NOBODY else had at that time. If you read this blog, you got it first, the WARNING that it was actually mathematically possible for Trump to win. And then of course over the coming months, we monitored his race and revisited those calculations and the ongoing polling, his debate performances and all that.

I know this stuff. Of people not professionals in politics (consultants, lobbyists, professors etc) who are not Americans, I may be the best 'amateur' expert of the US Presidential race. Just go back and read the whole series of blogs about this race this season - how many times it was this blog which first noticed some upcoming trend or phenomenon, and also, often pointed out when the media were getting hysterical, when some matter was NOT a real story (like say various sudden emergencies around Bernie. He never had a chance. That was obvious by the MATH, much as he hates Super Delegates, that is part of the Democratic party system, which to a large degree prevents such con artists as Donald Trump from hijacking their party; and the Republicans probably will introduce Super Delegates after 2016, to prevent future Trumps from ever wrecking their party again).

Before Trump announced, I thought he was a moderate business-oriented but not very strongly opinionated 'Republicans'. Someone you could easily accuse of being a RINO, a Republican In Name Only. He had recently been a Democrat. He was on record for many positions that were not in line with the Republican party as it now exists with its Tea Party flavor. As such, I am myself a moderate and I strongly tend to favor the moderate candidates, not the extremes (my preference in US Presidential elections is nearly totally evenly balanced, Republicans and Democrats, since 1972, one party has one more choice because its not an even number of elections. I have been switching back and forth, its not like I was with one party loyally in my youth and then switched to loyally vote for the alternate. Obviously I can't vote in US elections, I am a Finn, but my preference is the rare true 'swing voter' who always goes by the specific issues and candidates, and essentially ignores the party affiliation. As I've written, I wish the 2-party system eventually will go away.)

But when Trump had his Mexican Rapists launch event, I was appalled. Then he didn't apologize, he went onto insult John McCain and feuded with Megyn Kelly, etc and I knew very clearly in my heart, that this is the worst kind of politician, he will make the political discourse worse by his very words - because of the nasty rhetoric, FUTURE elections will be more hateful. So I almost immediately soured on Trump. By the time he issued his fatwah against the Muslims, I declared Trump an enemy for life of this blog and my public persona, that I will hound him till I die, similar to how I am against Stephen Elop (and against Microsoft). So my personal emotions about Trump are very clear. I despise him as a human being, and I can't get enough of the delight in seeing him stumble from one disaster to the next. I can't wait for November election result - because I know Trump will lose by more than 10 points, he will go down as one of the biggest political failures of all time, and that means, both that his style will be seen as a sure way to lose - and we will also be finally rid of the clown on TV, and no more have to listen to his hatred.

Just like I write about Microsoft or Stephen Elop, I am very open that I have a personal gripe and it will show in my writing. That being said, I go by the math. Even though I knew I hate Trump more than any US Politician ever (more than Dick Cheney or Richard Nixon), I was fully able to do the math, that Trump WILL WIN his primary race. I said so on this blog in January, before the first state had voted, and I correctly predicted the whole primary race, so far, that I even pinpointed on what dates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio will be mathematically eliminated. And obviously correctly called their final standings - and within a few percentage points, I even had their delegate counts almost perfectly forecasted.

So even though I HATE Trump as a human being and as a politician - and I fear what he would do to world peace and the world economy if he were the President - I can VERY accurately still go by the math, and see where Trump can win - and will win - and where he cannot win - and won't win. Even thought I hated Trump in August of last year, it did not stop me from PUBLISHING the math that wait, Trump can win his nomination race. And even though I hated Trump, I published my full-season primary race, saying Trump wins the Republican nomination (before the first vote was counted).

So now to the Republican autopsy. Romney lost by 5. The GOP said the party has to work to improve relations with women and Hispanics. They did not, they made matters worse in the past 4 years while the Democrats worked to improve their already better relations with both groups. Now they nominate Hillary the woman who is also highly popular with Hispanics. So how does Trump fit in the picture. He has the highest gender gap - that has ever been measured. So of all 15 Republican candidates, Trump scores THE WORST among women (while Hillary IS a woman). And then Hispanics? Yes. Trump scores the lowest ever measured by any politician in polling history, among Hispanics. So the Republican party TOLD us what to do. They measured even the math, they cannot win the Presidency if they can't get 40% Hispanic support. Romney only got 30%. Trump scores under 20%.

If Hillary scores against a 'generic' Republican about 10 points victory, then you put in Trump, he WILL DO WORSE, because he is so hated by women - and he is so hated by Hispanics. Will this be that Trump loses by 15 points or 20 points or 25 points, that we can debate and argue and speculate about. But he will lose by more than 10 points - far more than that.

Again, I told you in my Hillary vs Trump preview - with all the math, all the demographic groups, all the campaign financing, the ground game, surrogates, issues, on and on. I said my math says 20 points. How 'certain' am I, well, give it plus/minus one fifth, so it could be as little as a 16 point difference or as huge as 24 points. Walter Mondale lost to Ronald Reagan in 1984 by 18 points, George McGovern lost to Richard Nixon by 22 points in 1972. That is roughly the scale of the catastrophic loss which the MATH says today - and all polling supports this - that Trump will lose with.

Now. You can love Trump all you want. You can fear Hillary all you want. I clearly hate Trump. I don't particularly love Hillary but I think she'll be a very competent President and will accomplish far more than the quite inefficient Obama. You can hope that Trump wins, go ahead. I am here to tell you - and all my readers - that the MATH is very very very VERY clear, Trump will lose by historic numbers. Everything I wrote in March is COMING TRUE. Except that Trump's behavior recently, makes his loss even worse. He is now acting as if he knows he will lose, and he is just fooling around, having 'thrown in the towel'.

Now, what do I do on this blog? On topics that I follow, I report on the STATUS of that matter. And as I warned in 2014, keep your eye on the 2016 US election, it will be a landslide, and because Hillary will be flipping the Senate etc, it will be a historic election with huge consequences. So, since then, I have written my updates. The current status of the race is - Trump will lose by MORE than 20 points because Trump is now digging his hole only deeper, he is running a self-destructive campaign and throwing gasoline on all that is already on fire. Do I love that, of course I do, but I am here to report it, as it happens.

I am VERY happy to discuss the various aspects of what is happening in the race, as you can see I spend much more time on these political topics on this blog than the smartphone topics haha, but I do expect some degree of realism. If you are willing to admit, yeah, Trump is probably behind right now - but he has a chance because of... (something) - I am all ears. We have a ton of readers here who are watching this race with bewilderment and would love to understand it more. It gives MUCH MORE insights to us, if someone who doesn't share our view, gives THEIR view, than to listen to someone who holds the identical view, 'sings to the choir'. I do hope you will continue to engage.

I do not mean Trump followers are all idiots, you clearly aren't. But Trump has more lowly-educated and brainwashed voters than anyone else in this cycle. I do not mean all analysts and experts are idiots, but some are. I tend to hate mouth-pieces of either side, but I appreciate experts who stick to the facts and numbers and give analysis based on reality, not delusions. I will not blame you for supporting Trump, nor for believing that he can win. I do want to warn you, trust me, I know the numbers - it is VERY likely that on this issue, much as it may pain you, Tomi is correct. So monitor the race WITH me. I will be the FIRST to warn, if the scenario I have calculated is NOT coming true - ie your guy has a chance. I will be here telling you that. But don't hold your breath. Trump will lose by 20 points or more - and then, sadly if you really like listening to the guy - I do think even Fox will refuse to give him a platform anymore, as Trump will be cast into that wilderness where Walter Mondale still wanders today, forgotten and forlorn.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[chithanh]

"The Trump candidacy looks a lot more like Reagan’s than anyone might care to notice."
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/ronald-reagan-was-once-donald-trump.html

@Tomi
> But Trump has more lowly-educated and brainwashed voters than anyone else in this cycle.

Indeed, and a large group of those were previously non-voters. This is what makes the thing a bit unpredictable. Still, Trump's task is extremely difficult, and he doesn't look to win if he doesn't seriously step up his game.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi chithanh

Yeah, fair point. But here is Trump's problem with that strategy. We KNOW where they are - they are in RED states (that he will win anyway). The highest number of white non-college educated voters are in West Virginia, Idaho, Kentucky, Wyoming and Montana. These are all red states, they are not in play. Trump will win these states. So if he gets those types of voters to show up, he just runs up the score in states he has already won. Where is Trump today? In California. California is the state with FOURTH LEAST number of white voters without college degree. New York his other fave target state is 7th on the list. He has gone hunting in a desert. Its the totally wrong strategy for that voter segment. Yeah he probably will drive up some of those voters. Most of that is in states that won't matter. Where it matters, their numbers are too low to tilt the race - and in THOSE states like California and New York - the MINORITY vote is LARGE which Trump is now aggrevating and increasing...

The myth of those 7 million 'sleeping Republican' voters has been debunked many times. Romney squeezed just about as much of those as there are. Yes, Trump might find one more million. He will be losing by about 28 million votes (if its a 20 point race) so one million is a drop in that bucket.

This is a PLAUSIBLE danger yes, its theoretically possible that there are vast amounts of voters, that Trump could waken up and they could come and shatter the voting - but then they would HAVE to show up in voter REGISTRATION numbers - where Democrats again this year have more than Republicans (first-time registrations). Its a myth. I can buy 1 million (unlikely) and could even push it to 2 million (extremely unlikely) but MOST of those will be in the 'dumb states' ie the rural Republican red states that Trump will win anyway and Hillary won't bother to try to win. Some are in safely blue states where they won't matter either. But of battleground states, Wisconsin is the first that has a relatively high 'dumb voter' count - it ranks 13th of the 51 states (and DC). They aren't a large enough voter block to tilt the game. But I can understand that Trump and his supporters (and various Republican analysts) believe in this, they have to hold onto something in their desperation.

The math isn't there. If it was a 50/50 race, with half a million votes in the balance (like Bush-Gore 2000) then yeah, this kind of voter group could tilt the race. Not this time. Nowhere near enough voters in the states where they are needed - and there is no evidence of a voter registration surge. Many who come to Trump rallies may love him but won't bother to vote, period. There is no Trump voter surge coming, not in any meaningful numbers. But I keep seeing that myth peddled on various right-wing news sites and blogs.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Catriona]

If Hillary does win in a landslide, it will have nothing to do with Gary Johnson (who draws more from Hillary). It would be because she has learned the art of persuasion. According to Scott Adams, her "full fear-and-violence" speech yesterday and the violent protests by her supporters outside Trump's rally are the start of it, and are working. The more she convinces people that her opponent is likely to start a war, the less people are concerned that she's a combination of Obama and George W. Bush.

Expect a really ugly campaign, particularly from her supporters. Throwing eggs at people and burning the American flag is just the beginning.

[Catriona]

Also, what people remember from the Libertarian Party convention was a striptease from a fat bearded guy. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld get tarred with that. It doesn't matter that Johnson and Weld are what experts say Republicans should be moving toward. Because they have tied themselves to the Libertarian Party they won't get much traction.

If Bill Kristol were serious, he'd have rallied behind Johnson rather than finding some unknown National Review writer to be the #NeverTrump candidate, particularly since the only way his longshot scheme would work would be if the third party candidate won 2-3 states that Clinton otherwise would have won (e.g. Massachusetts, New Mexico, Wisconsin). The fact that he didn't even give him a look shows that #NeverTrump isn't serious.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Catriona

You remember what I said about lies. You can have your own opinions, you don't get to invent your own facts. That comment was clearly over the line so I deleted it

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Winter]

@catriona
"Low-info voters tend to vote Democratic @chithanh."

Wishful thinking not supported by facts.

Who Is the Hillary Voter?
https://newrepublic.com/article/131762/hillary-voter

A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation
Sharp Differences by Race, Gender, Generation, Education
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

How Demographics Will Shape The 2016 Election
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-demographics-will-shape-the-2016-election/

The Level of Education of a Voter Is Becoming a Strong Determinant of how They Vote (Trump v. Sanders)
http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/trump-sanders-education-level

[Winter]

@Tomi
Sorry, answered before I saw your post.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Winter

Haha, no, thanks, thats great. Thanks for the links too.

Catriona.. in case you were wondering (but I know you knew that), just follow onto a couple of Winter's links

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Am returning to the responses & comments. Am on June 1

Hi Winter, oibur and Millard

Winter - on Trump U, I knew it was pretty bad. But these documents now out (past week) are POLITICALLY devastating. They aren't that bad in terms of 'evil' in a conspiracy-style to defraud the 'students' but they fit Trump's stereotype as a con artist and that the whole Trump U scheme was a bait-and-switch con, which undercuts the whole 'honesty' part of Trump being a man who 'tells it like it is'.

I think these documents will be used for long periods in the attack ads, and their aftermath - various journalists digging now deeper into the stuff, will make matters worse (finding students, interviewing them, finding teachers, interviewing them, etc) and some friendly investigative journalists will probably also get tips from the Oppo research team from Hillary's gang, on where to go for the best dirt in the follow-ups. The ideal way for Hillary is that she and her team won't reveal something (that they know/have found out) but rather, that first it is reported in the media - THEN Hillary can put it into one of her attack ads, quoting that media source.

oibur - the vet donations thing is also another weird one. Why dig into that hole too? Trump somehow seems to think that when he talks about his under-delivered promise of the veterans donation event, it somehow helps him. It brings back the story of John McCain, it brings back his cowardice of skipping the debate, it is an excuse for several of the largest veterans groups to remind everybody that they won't be a pawn in politics and refused this stunt - and that they thought Trump was hiding behind veterans fearing Megyn Kelly. Then it reminds people of the charlatan veteran's group that Trump supported earlier, plus now it seems one of the current group who got money is a shaky group as well. Then it reminds people Trump brags about things he actually hasn't done, and needs to be reminded. Then that he didn't pay as much as he promised. Then that he PERSONALLY tried to stiff the veterans. And that he threw a tantrum when journalists legitimately dug into the actual payments. There is no upside to this story. Those who were gullible enough to believe that Trump actually did this out of the goodness of his heart and because he loves veterans - they were conned in February. Since then this is only bad news for Trump and tarnishes his reputation further. Trump is behaving as if he DELIBERATLY wants to harm his chances.

Winter - yeah, Trump gets away with things other candidates would have had to quit the race for. Now, that being said, I sense a CLEAR tightening of how the media treats Trump and his spokespeople. Its not yet quite sharp, but they are interrupting him now more, correcting him about some of the blatant lies and chasing him to answer the questions he tries to avoid. Its not yet 'perfect' or even close, but the press is LEARNING how to handle Trump better. It will keep getting better during the summer and by September I think there won't be many cases with major media (national and cable TV, major newspapers) where he gets away with it anymore (except Fox of course). Now, the local media, local TV stations and small-town newspapers and radio - that will be a more wide mix of some will figure out how to do it, others will not know how.

The press is beating itself up pretty loudly and often about the lame Trump coverage - so part of it is a kind of collective guilt trip and an attempt to raise their professional behavior, as a group. I'd think the main election coverage press from major media will be leading that evolution.

Millard - haha yeah. If Trump were to drop out, gosh, the right wing would have an aneurysm. But what can they do. I can SO see it, if say the polls now after Hillary clinches on Tuesday, return to something around 7 point difference. Then the conventions come along, and after the conventions the race is around 10 points. Then the debates come along, and after the debates its 15 points, and its say early October. Trump will know he cannot make up 15 points when there is nothing left, the last debate is gone, he can't shift those numbers. His campaign is nearly bankrupt as all fund-raising has ended and Hillary is blasting him on all airwaves in all battleground states.

Then, rather than face the actual music and take the defeat in the election in one month - why not quit. And Trump remembers Ross Perot, the previous Billionaire to run. Why not quit. Then construct some pretense of why he is suddenly treated unfairly, and suddenly just quit. Claim that 'they' were somehow conspiring to deprive him of a clear victory. Now Trump has his excuse that he 'would have won' if he had not quit, but that the game was rigged and he wasn't going to play a rigged game... then WHAT is the Republican party GOING to do. It can't do anything. But when Trump is not running - most of those wacky Trumpistas who were supposedly going to bring a Trumpian wave to the polls, will not show up. Republican support will collapse. The down-ticket polling, if it in battleground states was something say 45-55 (say a John McCain Senator race or Rob Portman the Senator in Ohio) then after Trump quits, they drop something like 10 points and overnight, they are at something like 40-60 and their chances are wiped out. The party will beg and plead, Trump, please come back and resume your run. He may, he more likely won't.

Now he'd still be on the ballot of course and he would lose in even more epic manner than before but now he has a convenient excuse, he could have won, but he decided to quit because the race was rigged against him. But gosh, the Republicans yes, they'd be livid. It would seem like the ultimate back-stabbing betrayal. (which obviously has me hoping, this might be the actual outcome, but I am not yet thinking this is the most likely outcome of how it ends for our Trumpster).

(more comments coming)

Tomi Ahonen :-)