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

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi virgil

So I did a long series of replies to you, but onto that specific comment of will I write 'I am an idiot' - yeah, as long as its not an act of god (Hillary heart attack or something) and this is a relatively normal election, but Trump wins by whatever slightest squeaker - I will loudly say I was an idiot. But I go by the numbers, and anyone who refuses to see the HISTORIC advantage that Hillary already NOW has, before the full race has even started - come on, you KNOW Hillary will crush Trump in their two TV debates (if Trump doesn't chicken out of them) - the polls from August to November will only go one way - ever worse for Trump. He has ZERO assets to claw back the race. He has no money, he has no ground game, he has no surrogates, he has no issues, he has no major endorsements of trusted independents (or rivals). And he is really bad at debates. The only area where he is strong is getting to free media by publicity stunts. They already are wearing thin, he has to resort to ever more outlandish methods - and in the general election the media will obey very closely a 50/50 rule, no matter how much Trump manages to push himself into the news - the media will then obediently go and ask for Hillary to comment - and in rough terms, will give her about the same amount of time. So Trump's only advantage is neutralized.

But Hillary has an historic treasure trove of nasty things said by Trump or about Trump. She has the money to run endless nasty ads, she has an unprecedented array of surrogates to run into every corner to tell her story. She is a master of the policy details, a true policy wonk and her team has a Big Data machine to help pick the most damaging attacks against Trump. Trump has no new mud to sling at Hillary but Hillary has a mountain of mud to sling at Trump that we haven't even heard yet. So the overall polling gap will grow worse for Trump in September and October.

I am 100% convinced that Hillary will not just win, she will win by a landslide. So yeah. If I have somehow managed to miscalculate this badly, no margin of error at all. Not 95% certain. 100% certain. Not of a win, 100% certain its a landslide (at least 10 points) and EVERY data point out there in the past weeks supports this - Hillary is ahead in EVERY state that was a battleground state in 2012 including the only one that Obama lost (North Carolina) plus Hillary is ahead even in Arizona, which was not even in play in 2012. She will win by epic landslide. And this is BEFORE we witness idiot Trump campaigning in the fourth most Democratic state and second most Hispanic state in the nation. Yeah. I can promise you, I'll put in all caps, the title of my blog, if Trump wins. I will say I WAS AN IDIOT if that happens haha. But you know it won't be happening. I'm a bit too good at math, this is too much of a sure thing.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Oibur (am on 2 June)

On unexpected stunts. Yeah. I am still pondering this bizarre California campaigning. He was AGAIN in CA yesterday, Thursday (its Friday night my time). He did another event. You said he is having fun - yes, he clearly is. He is LOVING this. Now, if Trump felt that his campaign is tinkering on a loss, he is right at the abyss, and he has to devote all effort to stave off loss, because he still COULD capture a win - he would be doing everything in his power to try to win.

Now, if he KNOWS its beyond recovery, he can't win, then he'd maybe go all out, and just enjoy it, and have his run but enjoy it, while going down to epic defeat. I don't think that is the case. We know he keeps reading the public polling. And the last two weeks the polls showed a tightening of the race and we had a few outlier polls with Trump ahead. I believe Trump thinks, he knows better than the idiot pundits, he won't listen to the 'experts' like Manafort. He won't pivot. He was better than all the talking heads in the PRIMARY race when everybody doomed his campaign - and yet he ran it his way and he won. And the polls kept getting better for him all the time, when he did it his way.

Now he sees the tightening of the polls, and a few polls with him ahead - and Trump honestly believes, he is WINNING. That Hillary is losing. So now the right move - if you do that analysis, he tried the pivot - it didn't help. Then he went back to being the belligerent Nazi racist - and he is now tied with Hillary (ahead in his fave polls). Why NOT continue this way. He is not only enjoying himself, but he loves this time - because he has fallen into a false sense of security - he thinks he is winning. So he will continue the most destructive behavior conceivable - where OBVIOUSLY any half-wit politico would know, after you clinch - you PIVOT away from the extremist positions into the moderate positions for the general election. Instead, Trump is still CONTINUING the primary race, even as Cruz & Kasich have quit and all the fight is gone. Yet he continues the same. And as it was big rallies that got him here - and as he loves doing those - he continues doing them (instead of pivoting and doing the local press and various local events in the battleground states).

So for example the NY Times story with the girlfriends. This was a few weeks ago. But just yesterday at his stump speech - Trump went on a tirade about the NY Times being such lying bastard newspaper to print those lies about his girlfriends. First, this will not win him NEW voters, those who think all press are liars, have long since joined the Trump Train. MEN can believe Trump that those were lies printed about his past conquests and Trump really wasn't a sleazebag and he really is a nice guy and it was a hit piece. WOMEN however, they IMMEDIATELY recognize the arrogant, rude, sexist guy - each of them has dated someone like Trump, in their past, and IMMEDIATELY see from his defensive claims - that there is truth to those stories. So this ONLY hurts Trump with zero upside but big downside. Why on earth would Trump dig that hole for himself. Its BAD NEWS. Stay away from it, don't remind anyone about it. But he does. No discipline, weird behavior, destructive behavior - and great circus for us watching on the sidelines. Yeah, this is the real Trump, we'll get 5 more months of this.

The 44 million dollar loan is the nastiest part - but note, Trump can repay himself whenever and however he wants. Even if some rich donors and the party say - you can't use this money to pay yourself back - Trump can use his NORMAL donations to pay himself back (like the ones who then get a hat or t-shirt). Incidentally, Politico reported that one of his biggest expenditures is 1 million per month in buying hats and other clothing to his supporters. And that he spends only a tiny fraction of that on all of his data operations. Haha. And Hillary is building a 200 million dollar Big Data machine...

On the GOP needing Hillary to obliterate Trump - yeah. I think some smart ones in the GOP do see that. Most are not that smart and will truly freak out when the truth becomes obvious. It does mean White House stays with the DEMs, the Senate flips (this was to be expected), the House flips (catastrophic) and of course SCOTUS (which means the whole Republican/Conservative AGENDA is suddenly undermined). When Hillary appoints her first Justice, that will be a VERY liberal and activist judge, who will be joining/driving several progressive/liberal agenda items from voting rights to women's rights to minority rights to anti-gun issues. Oh, and against the over-reach of business rights and religious rights. THAT is the desperation side of Hillary's landslide (thanks to Trump). If it was Jeb or Marco who was against her, the Republicans would lose by about 10 points and probably would keep a slim majority in the House, and that could help hold some of the conservative agenda. But as everything slips to Hillary's control and SCOTUS flips, it will be a crushing change to the Republicans. (and after Bush-Cheney, I say: serves them right).

For those who don't get it why GOP needs Hillary to crush Trump - yes, the Republicans need to get this type of campaigning 'outlawed' as 'flawed' and unworkable. They NEED to become friendly to Hispanics and women - so things like comprehensive immigration reform and no more war on abortion - these have to be accepted by the party. The leadership saw it after 2012 but the Tea Party and the grass roots fanatics have pulled in the wrong direction. A total drubbing of Trump will help extinguish some of those tendencies. Its kind of shock treatment. A mild push is not enough, it has to be a severe shock. Then it becomes a lesson that will be learned (like the Democrats learned from Mondale's loss in 1984).

(more comments coming)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[cornelius]

Hi Tomi,

I think your 2014 midterm prediction was wrong because there is some stuff that is not easily quantifiable. And I think you underestimated two things. First you underestimated the amount of democratic voters that did not show up to vote (luckily this only happens during midterms). The second thing that you underestimated is the erosion of the popularity of the elected officials. Unfortunately this will play an important role in the 2016 elections. This erosion helps explain why in the past elections we had roughly two terms of Republican presidents alternating with two terms of Democratic presidents. Normally this erosion affects only the government but this year the hatred towards the establishment is just another form of this phenomenon. Incidentally Clinton is negatively affected by both aspects of this erosion (government erosion and establishment erosion) as I'll explain below.
Closely related to the erosion phenomenon is the charisma of the presidential candidate. A candidate that advocates change is bound to be more popular, is perceived as more inspiring (because he/she brings hope). Clinton chose to center her campaign on the idea of continuing Obama's legacy. That makes her uninspiring. Compare her position with Trump's who is both anti establishment and anti current government.
I wish your predictions come true but I am skeptical. I think Clinton will win but it won't be a landslide. Of course there is a lot of wild stuff going on this year and it makes this election very hard to predict. For example we still don't know if/how Sanders will endorse Clinton, we still don't know if/when Trump will improve his disorganized campaign. But I am not sure if the Democrats will be able to flip the senate. I think Clinton's win will be in the 5%-10% range.

@virgil Your moronic personal attack reminds me why I left that shithole of a country.

[virgil]

@Tomi, wow, you write a lot :). I truly hope that you're right (like I said - thought nobody seems to believe me - I'm not a Trump fan). But I'm not sure math applies in all situation (elections are not science); we shall see. Hillary will only win if she changes tactic and turns "populist" like Trump, otherwise I think Trump will get the best of her.

Oh, and BTW, ... the reality disagrees with these statements:
> Trump could NEVER win the MAJORITY of the delegates. That was not possible.

You may wish to check google. He already has a majority of delegates, and more than 10% are still up for grabs, for all we know he might take them all. I know, you'll say "but this is not fair, the others gave up, if they had run until the end Trump wouldn't have won the majority". Well... maybe yes, maybe not. But it doesn't matter - they gave up. So, here - it IS possible for Trump to get the majority.

Just like there, unfortunately there are multiple ways for Trump to win the election too. A Hillary medical issue (she has problems), the FBI investigation, etc... you may write them off as "unpredictable events", but they are not to be ignored, she is vulnerable on more than one angle.

@cornelius, WTF dude? what personal attack? :O

[cornelius]

@virgil You "guessed" that I was employed by SIE. Considering that Securitatea was the scum of this Earth, I consider your "guess" a personal attack.

[virgil]

Take it easy, man. It was a joke - you correctly guessed my nationality based on very little information. I would've said NSA but you had disclosed that you're a Romanian and you're living abroad so... SIE was the natural replacement :D

[Millard Filmore]

A very interesting blog post about Trump supporters and how to identify them. Yeah, they are mostly white, but also they are mostly middle class or slightly above. Not poor.

"What is it that most of these people do have in common that would draw them to Donald Trump? Philip Klinkner, professor of government at Hamilton College set out to find out and the answer isn't pretty. Via Vox:

You can ask just one simple question to find out whether someone likes Donald Trump more than Hillary Clinton: Is Barack Obama a Muslim? If they are white and the answer is yes, 89 percent of the time that person will have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton. "

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/how-do-you-if-theyre-trump-voter.html

[Millard Filmore]

A very current poll result (summary from addictinginfo.org):

"A new poll from Reuters/Ipsos shows Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton leading the Republican candidate Donald Trump by eleven points (her largest lead yet), 46-35, while 19 percent weren’t sure or responded with someone else. This newest poll shows even more good news for Clinton: just last week, the same poll had her up by only five points."

The poll is from here:
http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM651Y15_13/filters/LIKELY:1/type/smallest/dates/20160401-20160531/collapsed/true/spotlight/1

[Millard Filmore]

@Tomi: there is a blogger out there saying things that are rather close to your evaluations and predictions.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/06/look-at-my-african-american-over-there/comment-page-1#comment-2021719

"This campaign is going to be a non-stop car crash. Since I predicted last summer that Trump had a real shot at the nomination, I’m going to throw another prediction out there now: There’s a non-trivial chance that Trump actually withdraws from the race at some point prior to the election."

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi gang

Its the weekend and I'm playing with my buddies, the numbers. I've done a total update to my massive every-state-every-demographic model with the latest inputs of latest/current data. If you want to play along, there is a VERY good but simple one-page chart of every state and the major demographic blocs at Real Clear Politics at this page:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

The REALLY nice thing about that summary table (by every state) is that they split out the 'White College Educated' ie 'generic Republican' voter from the 'White Non-College Educated' ie 'hard core Trump voter' demographic. Plus blacks, Hispanics, Asians. By every state.

Now, note they used the exit poll and other data - from the 2012 election. So the Hispanic vote for example shows at 10% when it is expected to be 13% this year. But if you want to just quickly grab a look, to see what is the mixture of the voting electorate in say Arizona or Virginia or Pennsylvania, that is an EXCELLENT table with the type of info that is probably the most relevant this cycle (bearing in mind, women are a bit over half, not separated in that table, but the ratio of women will be essentially the same percent in all demographics, meaning of Hillary gets a 10 point gender gap with blacks, she'll probably also have about a 10 point gender gap with whites, etc).

But yeah, I did some heavy math all last night and more this morning. I have some cool insights to share. Lets do in two separate comments

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Wayne Borean]

Damnit. Been slowly working my way through the comments (and attached links). There's lots of them. New pair of glasses, still getting used to them!

Where to begin...

Tomi,

Before you ran your numbers and came to the conclusion that Trump had a chance, I told you he was serious about running, and that I thought he had a good chance of winning the Republican nomination. Just wanted to remind you...

Everyone else,

Trump lost this election when Obama said he had 'evolved' on the Same Sex Marriage issue. While the LGBT is only between 3-5% of the population of the USA, many elections are won by smaller margins, and the Religious Wing of the GOP would prevent the party from changing.

Trump is just icing on the cake. Back when he announced I assumed he'd run as a New York Republican with a big mouth. Well, I got the big mouth part right!

Instead Trump has managed to alienate so many demographics I can't count them all. Yes, he has some of the same things Reagan had, in a more uncouth manner. The problem is that he's self destructive. Reagan was a terrible president (see my discussion with Tomi a couple of months back) but he didn't antagonize voters. Trump does.

If Trump doesn't drop out, or die of apoplexy, I think that the gap will be closer to 25 points (this also assumes that the Libertarians are stuck at 1-2 million votes).

I didn't run numbers to get that, it is based on comments from Americans I know, very few of whom like Trump.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

First off,

This lunatic idea by Trump to fight for California (and New York). He was there again on Friday, another rally. I wanted to find some NUMBERS to show why this is so idiotic. I think I have a VERY interesting case study for us.

I went back through every state vote of the past four election cycles, to find which was the largest 'captured state' by percentage of the swing in the vote. So a state that one party lost the previous election, which they then 'flipped' and won in the next election. These happen, Obama stole North Carolina from the Republicans in 2008 but Romney took it back in 2012. But those were elections which were close all along and the swing in the votes was not that big. What has been the largest swing in votes (I only went back to year 2000). And I found it, quite a doozy in fact. Indiana. In 2004 Indiana voted for W Bush with 21 point margin. Then in 2008, Obama came and stole Indiana - with a one point victory. So the swing was 22 points. That is an amazing capture and would give plenty of hope for the Trumpistas thinking, yeah, they can flip California (which is a consistently Democratic state that went by 21 point win for Obama over Romney in 2012) or even New York (the fourth-most Democratic state in the nation, going by 27 points for Obama in 2012).

First off, its the only state that did anything this massive a swing, and after 2008, Obama abandoned Indiana and did not try to win it last time, and Indiana went back to the Republicans voting for Romney by 10 points. Now, lets see HOW they did it in 2008. The Obama-Biden ticket held 8 campaign events in the state of Indiana that cycle (none in 2012) while the McCain-Palin ticket held 5 events. So to start with, you will need to spend a lot of time in a state you try to win, and the scale is something nearing twice as much time. The reason Obama could 'afford' to 'waste' so much time in Indiana in 2008, was because he was SO FAR ahead of McCain. Obama was kind of padding his lead.

But then lets look at the money. The TV ADVERTISING spending by the two sides in 2008. Obama spent nearly 18 million dollars in Indiana avertising, compared to just over 3 million for McCain. Obama outspent McCain by 15 million dollars. Or to put it another way, Obama outspent McCain by a factor of SIX. He spent SIX TIMES more. To understand how big was 15 million dollars in 2008, the total campaign was about 500 million per side, and roughly 40% of that went into advertising so about 200 million. Obama threw 8% of his total ad budget to OUTSPEND McCain pick up this one state. Then what was the result - the thinnest victory of that year, where Obama just barely squaked out the win, by 1% over McCain. There was a Libertarian candidate on the ticket who took more votes than what was the difference between Obama and McCain. Almost certainly the Libertarian was what finally killed McCain in the state, but this was all academic because Obama was cruising to a 7 point landslide victory anyway over McCain, he utterly did not need Indiana, Obama was already the winner and had won the election before they stopped counting Indiana votes.

But we can get a VERY ROUGH and only 'ballpark' type of number of how expensive it is to flip a state. Obama had a 7 point national vote advantage. So his race in Indiana was not to go from 20 points loss to 1 point victory. Obama's national popularity cut that race to being behind only 13 points before the fight begins. Then see what he did. He converted 14 points. To do that, he spent just under 15 million dollars MORE than McCain (plus spent 3 more events in Indiana). We could simplify this to say, for a state roughly the size of Indiana, to convert 14 points takes 15 million in TV ads, so its roughly 1 million dollars of TV ads would swing 1% of the vote. This was 2008 campaigning, when the total race was 500 million per side. Now it is a Billion-dollar race, so for a state of the size of Indiana, we could say it now costs probably - in very VERY rough terms - two million dollars in TV ads more than what your rival spends in that state - and you have to also spend more time in the state than your rival.

So Trump is in California. California is a FAR larger state than Indiana and far more costly to advertise in (many media markets). Lets now use a multiplier, again a simplification but it is based on voter numbers. Lets use the Electoral College factor. Indiana gets 11 EC votes, California gets 55 EC votes. So we have a factor of 5. California is (in VERY rough terms) 5 times more expensive to campaign in, than Indiana (but obviously California also yields 5 times more EC votes if you win it, rather than Indiana). This is again a gross oversimplification, but I have bigger fish to fry, we need a model that has some relevance to reality. We do know California is more expensive to campaign in, than Indiana.

So if in 2008, it took one million dollars of TV ad overspending more than your rival, to win one point of election victory, in Indiana; then today in 2012, in a larger state like California, and with today's budget, it means 10 million per single points of California vote percent (above what your competitor spends). And California is 21 points for Democrats. Trump would have to overspend above what Hillary spends, in California, in VERY rough terms, something like 210 million dollars JUST TO TIE the race, or 220 million to pull ahead by one point. If we assume Hillary spends say 100 million to defend California, that would mean Trump would have to spend 320 million to try to flip the state. Plus he'd have to spend significantly more time in the state than her. (oh, and not commit stupid errors like saying there is no drought in California, I can't hope to estimate how much that damaged his vote in the state. It may have doomed him already, like how Romney was doomed in Ohio after he wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt')

So the TOTAL 2016 TV budget for Hillary is likely to be about 400 million dollars - for all 12 battleground states, commbined. Trump will have less money than Hillary. And his plan would cost him 320 million AT LEAST to even BUDGET a CHANCE to win California - assuming that Hillary would only do a lukewarm defense of the state.

Now compare Florida and Ohio. Combined, those two states have 47 EC votes. But the Republicans are behind in those two states by only about 3 points. So say 4x cost of Indiana to fight in these two states, Trump would need to overspend above what Hillary does, to maek a 4 point difference in these two states (from 3 point loss to 1 point win) and it would cost him 16 million dollars (above what Hillary spends to defend the two states). It is 14 times more expensive to try to win from the deep hole in California, for nearly the same amount of EC votes, out of the very narrow race in Ohio and Florida instead.

You see why I think this is total sheer absolute madness by Trump to waste his days and money in California. Here is the kicker. If Trump were to spend all his money in California and actually flip the state. If Hillary only keeps all other states that Obama won - all states where Hillary currently also holds a polling lead by the way - then it doesn't matter if she loses California, she STILL WINS. Without spending one cent to 'defend' any of the other about dozen real battleground states and doing no events there. The REALLY REALLY painful part is, that Hillary is ALSO already ahead in two states that Obama lost in 2012 - if Trump doesn't fight for those (Arizona and North Carolina) Hillary can throw away California and still win with so much to spare - she can ALSO lose New York state haha (and Trump hasn't got anything like the money to try to win both California and NY).

The ONLY way you CAN win, is to know where the battle is, and focus and then outperform in those states. The battle is in Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and Florida. Here is the rough part for Trump. He actually has to win those three (or he can swap out Colorado and win another state in its place, like New Hampshire or Iowa or Wisconsin).

The EASIEST path, the cheapest path for a narrow narrow barely by-the-skin-of-his-teeth win for Trump is that he HAS to win Florida, Virginia and Ohio. Plus one more battleground state. New Hampshire is the easiest of the rest but it could be Colorado or Nevada or Wisconsin or Iowa. But if Hillary just snatches ONE of those three - Florida, Virginia or Ohio - the race is over. Just one. And Hillary is ahead in EVERY one of those states, absolutely every one. Plus she's ahead marginally even in two states that Obama lost in 2012 - Arizona and North Carolina. And Hillary is within striking distance already now, early summer, before she has fully gotten her act together - she is within striking distance in at least five more states - Missouri, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi and Utah. And we haven't gotten any recent polling out of Texas, but I betcha after the Conventions, the next two or three polls from Texas show a race within single digits and could be only a handful. She is that close also in Texas, only it hasn't been measured recently.

This is a classic strategy BLUNDER. You don't go fight your enemy where the enemy is strongest and you are weakest. That is a sure way to lose. You pick the fights to be where your ENEMY is weakest and you have your best chances. That is Ohio, Florida, Virginia and then add a few more, to pick one more victory out of Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire or Nevada, possibly Wisconsin. The more Trump deviates from a tight four-state precision battle, the more he wastes his sparce resources on futile battles he will lose. And California (and New York), no. It is yes, technically possible to bombard that state and try to force a victory, but not if you're the underdog and don't have the money. Hillary can EASILY match every dollar and every event, and keep that race at 20 points - while Hillary has the money and time and surrogates to go ALSO secure the actual battleground states. If Trump won't spend dozens of millions in all of those, Hillary can clinch them with a couple of million of happy-face Hillaryads, and some nasty Trump-is-a-monster ads thrown into the mix. She is AHEAD in every battleground state that Obama won, plus two more that Obama lost.

So just wanted to share this logic and a very rough estimate of the COSTS of this battle and how much Trump is now throwing away of his slimmest of chances. And to be very clear, I love this, I hope he continues forever on this moronic path, but no semi-intelligent political operative would allow him to squander his chances like this. Trump is a rogue candidate out of control and undisciplined, wasting his chances (and sinking the party with him).

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Wayne

You're totally right and yes, this is part of why I love the discussions on the blog. i learned a lot from you and part of your writing is what made me open my eyes and study the chance for Trump. Most def, you were there to guide me to see the chance he had. Thanks! Also great discussions since.

Now I have the other big math comment I have to add, hold on, let me do that.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi everybody

So then a part 2 of the big math update. I updated my big model, then I ran a series of scenarios. I took what I consider are the 'optimal' best case developments for either candidate (in a two-person race, ignoring Libertarians). So for Trump. There is the argument that Trump can narrow the gulf he has with Hispanic voters. Maybe he can attract back some of the black voters now that Obama is no longer on the ticket. Then the white vote, if there is a silent majority - mostly with the non-college educated whites but also among college-educated whites, then those need to be aroused for Trump. And maybe its like Catriona keeps telling us, that women hate Hillary and there won't be a women's surge. These would be the kind of optimal conditions for Trump. Then on the opposite end, what if Hillary powers a female voter surge. And with Trump's war on women, the BALANCE of women vote, the gender gap grows larger. What if there is a big Hispanic wave too (as I've repeatedly claimed) and then that the BALANCE of Hispanic voters is worse this time than last time with Romney, ie the Hispanic voters really hate Trump. And maybe the black vote is actually not down more than just a sliver, with Hillary hugging Obama etc. I ran the model through six scenarios for precise points of an election outcome. I modelled a 5 point Trump win; a total 50/50 election; a 5 point Hillary win; a 10 point Hillary win; a 15 point Hillary win; and a 20 point Hillary win. The reason I ran these specific intervals, was to give us 'warning signs' ie benchmarks.

If my model is reasonably close on the mix of the electorate, and the various trends that might happen for any of the above scenarios, then we will see WHICH STATES would be in play, at any of those intervals. That is where this gets interesting. We will hear, in September, from both teams, when they start to shut down local offices and cut their budgets, and not run TV ads, and not schedule public speaking events - that one side is abandoning some state. We may see, like Obama in 2008 with Indiana - that suddenly a team is going to 'attack' a state which was considered safely in the other team's column. When Obama started to run a barrage of TV ads, and scheduled a bunch of events in Indiana - then McCain had to react and respond. The battle had shifted. So by September we will see signs of this, and by October it will be VERY clear, where is the main battle. And now my model...

This model will tell us, roughly, what is the state of the race, based on where the epicenter of the battle is. I have picked 3 major states for the tighter race, and then just the nearest 3 states even if they're smaller states if its a blowout, to give us a warning. If the battleground includes these three states, the race is roughly at that level of final outcome (please obviously deduct any states if there is a Vice President selected from that state - ie if Trump selects Rubio, then Florida will be a special case, and no longer accurate in this count, or if he picks Kasich, then it would be Ohio which won't be accurate measure anymore, but there are 3 states in every scenario).

If its a 5 point Trump win - then the battleground is in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota

If its a dead-heat 50/50 race - then the battleground is in Ohio, Virginia and Colorado.

If its a 5 point Hillary lead - then the battleground is in Florida, North Carolina and Arizona.

if its a 10 point Hillary victory - then the battle is in Missouri, Indiana and Georgia

If the race is a 15 point landslide - then the battlegrounds are at Texas, Montana and Alaska

And if the blowout is a 20 point Hillary cakewalk - then the battlegrounds are at South Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana

These numbers will not be very indicative this summer but from September we should see a narrowing and by October this 'thermometer' should give a pretty good indication of where the real race is. Of course also polling at that time will be telling us the same story, but some polls will be bizarre and a given campaign situation (Romney 47% quote, a bad debate by Obama) can cause temporary distortions. The race will be VISIBLE on those markers. If Trump is not in Pennsylvania and Michigan in September and Hillary is not bothering with them - there is no chance of a 5 point Trump victory. If Hillary is not spending any time or TV ads in Texas or Montana, then its not a 15 point race for her.

Wanted to share this 'tool' for us. I will be monitoring how it performs, its conceivable that the tool has some imperfections or some instance causes it to have a fault - most obviously the VP selections will mess with it (Hillary picking Julian Castro as VP will mean that Texas then won't be a valid measure, etc).

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi everybody

Just saw the bit on CNN. I think this is the most powerful hit-piece to demolish Trump and it is coming in tons and tons of variations. CNN just did a story about the Hillary foreign policy speech - where she accused Trump of saying a couple of silly things we've all heard. Then CNN cut to Trump at his next rally - answering Hillary, and claiming blatantly and openly 'I never said that'. And then.. the killer. CNN tape of Trump not just saying that thing, using the EXACT words that Hillary quoted. Devastating. Not just that the original Trump silly quote is said twice, but interspaced with Trump daring to claim he never said it.

I said months ago, that these 'Daily Show with Jon Stewart' style of ads will be the most damaging. I believe the Hillary campaign (and/or her SuperPAC) has tons of these prepared, and are just waiting for the optimal time to run them. They of course are at that incredibly delicious dilemma - of deciding whether to run them now - or wait as Trump is likely to commit even more damaging quotes still now, before at some point, he will be put under restraint by his team and the Republicans. But gosh, he seems like an imbecille and a blatant liar, when Hillary says 'Trump said x' Trump says Hillary lies, I have never said that - and the next clip from CNN is VERBATIM what Hillary claimed. And its possible Trump doesn't really remember what he has said, because he had never thought about the Presidency seriously, so he had no positions and he said whatever he felt like, at the time, never thinking it will ever be relevant. Boy there are MILES of such videotape waiting to come to light.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

PS

Spotted on Twitter, Rachel Maddow on MSNBC did almost same bit on the clips of Trump and his actual words. I think the CNN version was more tight and better edited for real impact. But yeah, this is 'obvious'.

Oh, and then also from Twitter - if you've seen the movie Idiocracy, the producers are now working on anti-Trump attack ads with some SuperPAC. Could be funny...

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Winter]

@Tomi
I always say that math is beautiful. Such a pity people only rarely believe me.

[chithanh]

Tomi,
> but then they would HAVE to show up in voter REGISTRATION numbers - where Democrats again this year have more than Republicans

I said so before, I think the increase in Democrat voter registrations is due to Sanders and not Hillary. Only Sanders and Trump appear to be able to raise voter turnout in any significant way. If Hillary is able to capture all of them, then I agree it is game over for Trump, but at this point it is not certain.

> it now costs probably - in very VERY rough terms - two million dollars in TV ads more than what your rival spends in that state

That is probably correct, but it doesn't paint the whole picture. The goal is to get ahead of your opponent, and converting their voters into your voters is nice but not the only way to reach that.
Another is mobilizing non-voters.
A third one is making sure a third candidate is in the race to draw votes off your opponent.

[Winter]

@Tomi
The wildcard in your model is the VP choice.
Ideally, it should be a respected moderate hispanic female govenor to complement Trumps negatives. Someone like Susana Martinez. Ok, who else?

Kasich, Rubio, and Bush would all help to attract voters in important states. Rubio wants it. The others, I wouldn't know.

But can the effects of the VP be incorporated in your model?

[Winter]

Maybe Martinez is still in the race?

Trump, New Mexico's Martinez to meet 'in the near future'
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/politics/donald-trump-susana-martinez/

Tomi, any idea what a VP spot for Martinez would mean for Trump's losses? And for Martinez' chances in 2020?