My Photo

Ordering Information

Tomi on Twitter is @tomiahonen

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

Book Tomi T Ahonen to Speak at Your Event

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

Tomi on Video including his TED Talk

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


Blog powered by Typepad

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

May 30, 2016



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.


"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.


"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.


"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.


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)

The Mind of Donald Trump
Narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity—a psychologist investigates how Trump’s extraordinary personality might shape his possible presidency.

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 :-)


"The Trump candidacy looks a lot more like Reagan’s than anyone might care to notice."

> 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 :-)


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.


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


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 :-)


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

Wishful thinking not supported by facts.

Who Is the Hillary Voter?

A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation
Sharp Differences by Race, Gender, Generation, Education

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)


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 :-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Available for Consulting and Speakerships

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

Tomi's eBooks on Mobile Pearls

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

Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009

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

Alan's Third Book: No Straight Lines

Tomi's Fave Twitterati