↓
 
Home » How can you tell when a campaign is ahead (and more on polls and Shy Tories)?

How can you tell when a campaign is ahead (and more on polls and Shy Tories)?

The New Neo Posted on by

In yesterday’s post on how to tell when a candidate’s losing, commenter “Ackler” posed an interesting question:

I agree, Neo, that yard signs and campaign crowds are of little relevance (although this year is utterly atypical and should make everyone pause). My question is: what, besides polls, do you take as a sign a campaign is winning? You’ve offered a detailed explanation as to how to tell if a campaign is losing. The reverse?

My answer: it’s the other campaign that’s winning, the one that isn’t making those excuses.

I’m not just being facetious. It really does seem to boil down to that as being the best answer. The absence of those excuses and rationalizations (for example, the “I’m not seeing many bumper stickers for the opponent” excuse, and/or the skewed polls excuse) is a sign of being in the lead.

But other than that, the polls are the best indicators we have. Despite their flaws, they are (as I said in that post) fairly good predictors if you look at averages over time.

I’m always rather astonished at how many people seem to make the same mistakes over and over about this (although I certainly understand the need to rally the sagging troops). Don’t people get tired of talking about skewed polls and crowd enthusiasm? More to the point, don’t their listeners remember how many people talked about that in 2012 for Romney, and how wrong they all were?

Of course polls can be skewed, especially in the sense that turnout is impossible to predict from year to year. But most reputable mainstream pollsters try their best to predict outcomes accurately, particularly in the last few months and weeks of a campaign, because their reputations go down if they don’t predict accurately and consistently. They want to get it right. So they use algorithms to predict turnout (it’s my understanding that each pollster has his/her own) based on things such as turnout last time, changes in party registration from year to year, and querying the respondents as to their intentions and enthusiasm.

If polls are later found to be “off” in terms of party percentages, it may be because the turnout that election cycle was unusual in some way. That certainly might happen in this very very odd year—but in what direction? That’s the million-dollar question. For example, many people who don’t usually vote could come out this year because of Trump enthusiasm, or an unusual number of people could come out for the express purpose of stopping Trump. And none of this has much to do with the enthusiasm of his crowds (which constitute, after all, a small number of actual voters, however large they might be, and don’t measure the less-enthusiastic who nevertheless vote), or the number of signs on lawns. We’ve heard that sort of thing in election after election. But have you noticed that ordinarily you only hear it from the losing side?

In the post I wrote yesterday on which Ackler commented, I also mentioned the Shy Tory factor. Here’s a description:

Shy Tory Factor is a name given by British opinion polling companies to a phenomenon first observed by psephologists in the 1990s, where the share of the vote won by the Conservative Party (known as the ‘Tories’) in elections was substantially higher than the proportion of people in opinion polls who said they would vote for the party. This was most notable in the general elections of 1992 and then 2015, when the Conservative Party exceeded opinion polls and comfortably won re-election.

In this election, I’ve read many claims that there is probably a similar thing going on with Trump voters, a sort of “Shy Trumper” effect. Although the term may seem an oxymoron for people who supported Trump at the outset—they seem not the least bit shy to me—it certainly could describe those who are reluctant Trump voters. We have no way of knowing about their numbers, but my guess is that it’s a small factor if it exists at all. The only evidence I’ve found so far actually points in the opposite direction—you might say to an “extroverted Tory effect”:

In Republican primaries and caucuses, the polls generally had a pro-Trump and anti-Cruz bias. In races where Trump and Cruz were the top two finishers in some order, the bias was 5.5 percentage points in Trump’s favor. The bias dissipated as the race went along, and there wasn’t as much of a bias when another candidate ”” John Kasich or Marco Rubio ”” was Trump’s main competitor in a state. Still, the primary results ought to raise doubts about the theory that a “silent majority” of Trump supporters is being overlooked by the polls. In the primaries, Trump was somewhat overrated by the polls.

I’m not sure how much to make of that—after all, it was the primaries and not the general. But it certainly casts doubt on any Shy Tory effect being a pro-Trump factor in this particular election.

Comments

How can you tell when a campaign is <i>ahead</i> (and more on polls and Shy Tories)? — 48 Comments

  3. More accurately, Cruz was under-represented in primary polls. I noticed that he got enormous percentages of “undecided” voters; those who waited until the last moment to choose a candidate.
    That phenomenon prevailed until sometime after WI. By the end of the Northeastern states, the bandwagon was firmly in place for Trump.

  4. huxley Says:

    I would say you can tell a campaign is ahead if its strategy is to run out the clock.
    In Hillary’s case, it’s impossible to tell because her NORMAL strategy is be invisible and let the media do her lifting.
    What is it now, 250 days without a press conference for her?

  5. Pretty much.

    It appears that Hillary’s campaign knows that she’s a weak candidate, and her game plan is to keep the candidate out of the spotlight. The question is whether or not that strategy is working.

    Both candidates have ridiculously high negatives, and both candidates are taking widely different approaches to try and overcome this handicap.

  6. Neo,

    I think you make a mistake by comparing the Shy Tory effect to primary voters in the Republican Party. I don’t think Trump’s primary voters were shy at all, as you noted, and they aren’t shy today, either. I think, if there is an underestimate of Trump’s support today, it will come in the form of Republicans and Republican leaning voters who didn’t support Trump in the primaries- it is precisely those voters who might be reluctant to admit to pollsters that they will vote for Trump. In any case, we will see in November who is correct.

  7. Yancey Ward:

    But that’s nearly exactly what I was referring to.

    I wrote that in this election I’ve read many claims that there is probably a similar thing going on with Trump voters of a Shy Tory effect re Trump, that his voters don’t seem not the least bit shy to me, but that (this is the important part) the Shy Tory effect “certainly could describe those who are reluctant Trump voters.”

    And it certainly could. But I added that “we have no way of knowing about their numbers.” And we certinaly don’t.

    Then I guessed that the phenomenon is probably “a small factor if it exists at all.” And added that “the only evidence I’ve found so far actually points in the opposite direction” (points, doesn’t prove), and also said that I wasn’t sure what to make of the data because it was gathered from “the primaries and not the general.” If anything, it casts doubt on the existence of a Shy Tory effect for Trump, but it doesn’t necessarily cast that doubt; we just don’t know.

    So where’s the mistake? Seems to me I’m saying almost exactly what you’re saying.

  8. I am saying it doesn’t cast doubt on the theory at all, and for exactly that reason.

  9. In other words, it is a thing that can only be demonstrated by holding the election.

  10. Yancey Ward:

    No, it is a thing that can only be demonstrated for sure by holding the election.

    But observation of past elections is what gives us the clues to the probable signs. Any prediction is like that, especially where people are involved. One can only be sure ex post facto, but prior to that one can make accurate and informed predictions that are likely to be correct.

  12. We are witness to a struggle for America’s soul, between the collective ‘good’ and the individual’s liberty to pursue their own self-determination.

    We are witness to a Clash of Civilizations between a 21st century West and a 7th century totalitarian ideology that wraps itself within a facade of religious pretense.

    We are witness to the abandonment of belief in a “divine providence”, the abandonment of moral norms that are as old as writing itself and the concurrent abandonment in the underlying rationale that posits the existence of “unalienable rights”.

    Our current state of affairs is, in the aggregate, a reflection of the electorate, which is how this Presidential campaign came to be. Such an electorate choosing catastrophe over disaster is perfectly predictable.

  13. Thank you for highlighting my question, Neo. If I may, I’d like to offer my own prognostication, for what it’s worth (not much) 70 days before the election:

    1. The “crowd factor”, while easily over-hyped by Trumpers, is actually of some significance this year. There is indeed a “shy Trumper” contingent, above and beyond what can be accounted for in pollsters’ algorithms.

    2. The shy Trumpers outnumber the contingent of Republicans/Republican leaning independents who either will vote Hillary (a very small number outside the beltway), will vote third party or will stay home. This group is far overemphasized by the MSM for obvious reasons.

    3. Most presidential polls are thus, inaccurate. And not slightly. This is largely due to the shy Trumper factor. I am not at all propagating any outlandish conspiracy theories about deliberate poll skewing by biased pollsters

    4. This election will be relatively close. Far closer than the conventional wisdom of the journalistic elite (across the political spectrum), have convinced themselves of. I can’t help but wonder how many of this chattering class ever ventures to flyover country for any extended length of time.

    5. HOWEVER, all of the above will be insufficient to elect Trump. Hillary will win. BUT, Trump will carry all the Romney states. In the end, none (other than perhaps North Carolina) will even be much of a nail-biter.

    6. Furthermore, Trump might pull off an upset in Ohio and/or Florida. At minimum, these states will be close enough to give the MSM mavens acute headaches when the returns are coming in.

    7. And on that note, there will be collective denial in the MSM about the close margin on election night. Georgia, where polls close early, will be a salient example. Even when Trump remains ahead by 5-6% with 70%, 80%, 90% of the votes reported, most outlets will refuse to call it for him.

    8. But again, not quite enough. Even if he carries Florida and Ohio, Trump will not prevail. Hillary wins but by a narrower popular vote margin than Obama in 2012.

    9. The majority party in the Senate will have no more than 52 seats (I’m counting King and Sanders as Democrats, of course). Who has the majority will depend on no more than about 100,000 votes strewn across six to ten states.

    10. Republicans will lose 5-10 seats in the House. It’ll be noteworthy, but they wil, retain a comfortable majority.

    11. The chattering classes will briefly express shock and engage in introspection as to their inaccurate assumptions/predictions. On election night, surely, and into November 9th. Maybe beyond for a few days. But by November 15, all such discussion will dissipate under the cacaphonous chorus of chortling commentary on Hillary’s historic victory and the imminent death of the GOP.

  14. I remember the actual Shy Tory of 1992, not least because I called it right.

    Everyone was convinced the Labour Party would win, especially the Labour Party whose final campaign rally was a victory party. The BBC’s election graphics were designed for a Labour victory. They were little 3D stick men sitting in a computer generated House of Commons, some Blue some Red. In the time between the Polls closing and the Count starting to come in, we were shown how all the little Blue men would all turn Red (we do the colours the other way round over here). In the event the little Blue men stayed the same colour all night. They might as well have used a painting.

    Why was I right when everyone else was wrong? It certainly wasn’t optimism. There was an element of hunch and instinct.

    What decided me was sharing a few beers with a couple of strangers on a train into London one Sunday afternoon. We don’t generally talk politics with strangers here, but the Election was in the air, so the topic came up. Both were firm Tories, and not in the least shy. So this could be a parable of a Leftist journalist (as I then was) encountering real life outside the London media bubble.

    Except I had been outside the bubble before, and something different seemed to be at work on this occasion.

  15. “But most reputable mainstream pollsters try their best to predict outcomes accurately, particularly in the last few months and weeks of a campaign, because their reputations go down if they don’t predict accurately and consistently. They want to get it right.”

    I’m so naive. I thought the main function of pollsters was to energize leftist.

    They play a similar role to the political agitator in that their purpose is to get out the vote, but with a different technique. Rather than agitate for votes they create positive enthusiasm. They’re only accurate in that they push enthusiasm for Democrats enough to seem legit but not obvious.

    During the 2008 election I was polled by Quinnapec and was very happy to answer all of the questions and agreed to be on their list. I lean right – I’ve never been called again.

  16. Well, since Trump has mostly shut his ex tempore mouth except for some impolitic tweets, his poll numbers have gone up and his 538 forecast improved from 89-11% to 81-19%.

    Still, it’s hard to see him catching Hillary from this far back.

  17. I should have added one more prediction to my list.

    12. The numbers currently for Johnson and Stein will decline precipitously as election day draws nigh. This is typical: dissatisfied voters flirt with third parties until the reality of the mainline candidate they hate the most possibly winning confronts them. Most then cast a nose holding vote.

    Prediction for popular vote: Clinton: 49%; Trump: 47%; Johnson: 2.5%; Stein <1%; remaining third parties splitting the residual 0.6-0.9%

    You heard it here first, folks. Feel free to call me out on it or congratulate me on November 9

  18. I know one thing for certain: We are in BIG trouble if Hillary wins.

    Small personal note. On Friday I attended the ceremonial swearing-in of 30 plus years friend Bob Rossiter as a federal judge.

    He is a lawyer of exceptional skill and absolute integrity. Not a political bone in his body. Completely fair.

    Hillary will pack the federal bench – from top to bottom – with liberals and political hacks. Nebraska is a tiny state but she will transform every circuit and SCOTUS.

    The old line is that a federal judge has as much power as he thinks he can get away with. It will be unchecked power at the top. The Clean Power Plan will be up first. Per the Bob Jones case, an attack on Jesuit colleges will be next. Polygamy to follow. And who knows what else. The Judiciary and Executive will team up against Congress. 2-1.

  19. Ackler

    What about Electoral College votes? Hillary can win NY by 1.8m votes but NE has 5 Electoral College votes and Trump has them locked up.

    It is a state-by state race.

  20. If you take the latest 538 data on probability and extract the linear trends for both out to November 8, then the odds become 53% Trump, 47% Clinton. Of course such a projection is to be taken with several teaspoons os salt, but the current trends are linear. This does not account for Trump’s mouth or Wikileaks.

  21. Cornhead:

    Yep, state by state race. See my long first post above. I think Trump will take all the Romney states and of them only North Carolina will be close. Furthermore, he might pull off an upset in Ohio and/or Florida. Iowa remains a remote possibility too (I consider Pennsylvania hopelessly out of reach for any GOP nominee). Nevada? Even more remote of a possibility. But even if Trump won all four of those, he still would lose, 273-265.

  22. Ackler,

    Yes, Trump can win Ohio and Florida plus all the other states Romney won and still lose. This is the danger the Republican Party is in, regardless of whether or not one thinks Trump is losing candidate. This why I think Trump was actually the only candidate with a chance to win. The problem is that states the Republicans can count on are shrinking rapidly. With a standard Republican candidate, I think you safely put VA and probably OH in the Democrats column, even with Clinton as the nominee. Only Trump had the chance to disrupting that coalition of states and voters. He may fail, but any other candidate wouldn’t have done better.

  23. I have two reasons to hope

    1. Trump wins all of the Romney states plus the industrial Midwest and FL as a Brexit 2 type victory which was not predicted.

    2. The leaked and deleted Hillary emails are such obvious bribes that they can’t be ignored.

  24. Yancey,

    I agree partially. I think your overall theory is correct, on the shrinking electoral map for the GOP. And I think Trump was more likely to disrupt that map than most of the other GOP candidates. Cruz in particular would have been markedly constrained. I know Cruz has many admirers on this blog and I certainly respect his principles. But he would not have been any stronger as the nominee than Trump. Much as we may wish otherwise, the portion of the electorate who are true economic conservatives is very small (a fraction of the number who “say” they are conservative). Moreover, it is exceedingly difficult to persuade voters towards conservative economic policy positions. Reagan did, to a certain extent, in a bygone era facing a very different electorate. I don’t ever see that being replicated, and certainly not by Ted Cruz. Even against Hillary, I can’t imagine him turning any blue states red. Trump might not either, but there is at least a possibility.

  25. Cornhead:

    I think #2 is a small but significant possibility. But the content of those emails would have to be blatantly damning. Multiple smoking guns. The MSM will go to great lengths to protect her, but there are limits. She is not Obama and the overall media fealty to her is not nearly as absolute.

  27. Ackler

    Some of those lobbyists are idiots. One spelled “Clintons” as “Clinton’s.” There is a blue dress in those deleted emails. Trust me. That’s why her lawyers destroyed them.

  28. The GOP deserves to be wiped out in this election for one reason: they nominated Donald Trump.

    He’s lucky the Democrats nominated an awful candidate too, as he actually might win.

    Other reasons the GOP needs to lose, and lose badly:

    Rush Limbaugh
    Ann Coulter
    Laura Ingraham
    Shawn Hannity
    Matt Drudge

    These false conservatives threw their lot in with the very definition of a RINO, who is even today flipping on the very issues that his entire campaign was based on.

    They need to lose badly. And if you think losing the bulk of “conservative” media would hurt the republicans chances, ask yourself how many Presidential elections have Republicans won since Rush Limbaugh became a big shot in the early 90s?

    I’m all for a reset on the conservative movement.

  30. Bill and OM

    You two need to get over yourselves. Focus on the big picture.

    Hillary is a criminal who is in the pockets of foreigners. We will get rolled by China, Iran and Russia. Open borders. No growth economy. Wrecked health care. Higher taxes. Liberal SCOTUS for 40 years. Much higher energy costs. Basically, hell.

  31. Cornhead: Speaking for myself, I’m tired of pro-Trumpers lecturing those of us less keen on The Donald.

    Yes, we understand what a disaster Hillary will be. We did notice. We rather wish the orginal Trump voters had considered that issue more deeply in their primary votes.

    It would be nice if you would focus on the big picture of what happens when the GOP gets remade in the image of Donald Trump and how much of a disaster his admininstration could be in the unlikely event he wins.

    Aside from the moral issue of voting for a man grossly unfit for the presidency, I am concerned how the GOP persuades voters that they have any principles — aside from winning — after we go all in for Trump.

    Maybe you guys figure the world ends after Hillary wins, so heck let it burn. But there will still be a United States afterward, however battered and broken, and some of us plan to keep on fighting for her.

  32. Huxley

    In all sincerity I really doubt a Trump presidency would be a disaster. I can’t think of a single thing he has said that – if implemented – would be disaster.

    Trump – for the most part – will have to pass legislation through Congress. Congress will have a role.

    Trump didn’t build his empire alone. He had smart people on his team. Construction. Finance. Accounting. Law. Marketing.

    People focus too much on his manner and style. I made that mistake. I don’t like that loud New York style. I got over myself.

  33. neo-neocon Says:
    August 26th, 2016 at 7:35 pm
    Yancey Ward:

    No, it is a thing that can only be demonstrated for sure by holding the election.

    Actually, it can’t be proven even then. If people don’t turn out to vote, or do so in droves, you can never be sure of the reason why. We will only ever get indications.

  34. Geoffrey Britain Says:
    August 26th, 2016 at 11:46 pm
    We are witness to a struggle for America’s soul, between the collective ‘good’ and the individual’s liberty to pursue their own self-determination.

    We are witness to a Clash of Civilizations between a 21st century West and a 7th century totalitarian ideology that wraps itself within a facade of religious pretense.

    We are witness to the abandonment of belief in a “divine providence”, the abandonment of moral norms that are as old as writing itself and the concurrent abandonment in the underlying rationale that posits the existence of “unalienable rights”.

    Our current state of affairs is, in the aggregate, a reflection of the electorate, which is how this Presidential campaign came to be. Such an electorate choosing catastrophe over disaster is perfectly predictable.

    Or, this is an election about who you would rather have a beer with (or a glass of mulled wine, in Hillary’s case).

    Really, GB…voters don’t think this way.

  35. Cornhead Says:
    August 27th, 2016 at 3:18 pm
    I have two reasons to hope

    1. Trump wins all of the Romney states plus the industrial Midwest and FL as a Brexit 2 type victory which was not predicted.

    2. The leaked and deleted Hillary emails are such obvious bribes that they can’t be ignored.

    2. Dems can ignore anything they wish to. You should know that by now.

    I predict that there will be little doubt which way the election will go after the last debate.

  36. @ Ackler:

    Cruz would’ve won the election with 412 electoral votes, getting 62% of the popular vote in the process.
    See? I can make unprovable counterfactual arguments too!

  37. Bill Says:

    The GOP deserves to be wiped out in this election for one reason: they nominated Donald Trump.

    The GOPe didn’t nominate Trump, the alt-right did. Trump’s floor of 30% was enough to push him over the line, and the GOPe was captive to their own process (coupled with general threats again coming from the alt-right…remember the delegates who got threatened?).
    Certain fence-sitters were also responsible for falling into the bandwagon mentality (and I wonder if they aren’t regretting it mightily now), and pushed Trump up into the 40s.

    There are lots of idle threats being thrown around by Trumpkins now about exacting revenge on this group or that group, but if Trump loses big their influence will diminish.

    The fence-sitters are the ones who need to learn a lesson from this, and they just might because they’re at least open to self-reflection, unlike most Trumpkins.

    Republicans will need to regroup after this cycle, but the most pressing danger will be all the people offering bad analyses for the loss. You already know the GOPe will try and use this to discredit the entire reform movement, and the Trumpkins will use it as some sort of evidence that the system is irredeemably corrupt (the evidence always coincides with them losing, for some strange reason).
    Both are wrong.
    The GOP factions need to realize that they either compromise or will lose permanently.

  38. “In all sincerity I really doubt a Trump presidency would be a disaster. I can’t think of a single thing he has said that — if implemented — would be disaster.”

    Many of his foreign policy statements, including abandoning our word and our allies and promoting nuclear proliferation, and also including his admiration for guys like Putin, could definitely end up as disasters. His isolationist trade policies could end up as disasters.

    “Trump didn’t build his empire alone. He had smart people on his team. Construction. Finance. Accounting. Law. Marketing.”

    I’ve heard this argument a lot too. Unfortunately, he has not demonstrated that he hires good people, if you look at the various resets in his campaign team and his lackluster GOTV and marketing campaigns. He’s lucky he’s facing HRC.

    “People focus too much on his manner and style. I made that mistake. I don’t like that loud New York style. I got over myself.”

    It’s his character. He is cruel, petty, totally lacking in empathy, impulsive, dishonest, thinks he knows everything, etc. It’s not the fact that he has an accent. I’m focused on what he’s said, the lies he’s told, the flip-flops he’s pulled, his mockery of others, etc. Conservatives used to think character mattered.

    Also – “get over yourself” is not an argument.

  39. Cornhead Says:

    In all sincerity I really doubt a Trump presidency would be a disaster. I can’t think of a single thing he has said that — if implemented — would be disaster.

    This is the source of all the disagreement:
    Trump supporters are far more optimistic about what Trump can accomplish, and far more pessimistic about what Hillary will do than Trump detractors.
    Trump detractors see them as almost equally bad, but with the added harm of Trump destroying conservatism by association for a generation.

    It’s a strange kind of argument that we ought to support the candidate who’s more of a threat to our worldview. That Trump *is* a threat to conservatism should be obvious, given the overt HOSTILITY the alt-right has expressed towards conservatives (and I don’t just mean RINOs, either).

    If it wasn’t clear to you before, let it be clear now:
    Constitution conservatives see Trump and Trumpism as a mortal threat to our values. There is no possible argument you can make that will induce us to vote for our own destruction.

    And with that, I think I’ve changed back into the “not voting for Trump” camp again.
    The rule of law will take a huge hit under Hillary, but at least conservatism will still exist and be viable as an opposition movement.
    Well…as long as Trumpkins don’t go on a vendetta against us (which they might).

  42. Hmmm.
    Well, trying again:
    WRT the Bradley Effect. Years ago, a writer in NR said he’d called a Brit election for the Conservatives despite polls.
    Conservatives had been slagged, mocked, demonized by journos, celebrities, writers, comedians. So when the nice middle class person calls you–in that nice middle class accent–you don’t want to admit you’re an evil, subhuman conservative. So you lie.
    In the US, today it can be much worse. The IRS, by law, knows your charitable inclinations. Just recently, they agreed to review years-old Tea Party applications.
    Chik Fil A’s owner donated to trad family causes. Gays and their supporters tried to start a boycott which was offset by a buycott. Part of the reason was that two city officials, one in Boston and the other in Chicago, had threatened CFA’s businesses.
    Two Trump rallies were attacked by protestors while police stood by, having been ordered to stand down.
    Gibson Guitars was shut down for six months over nothing, while their competition, Marvin Guitars went on. Both had (not) broken the same law. But the Gibson CEO donated Republican, the Marvin guy was smarter and donated Democrat.
    Remember Travelgate?
    Does anybody believe that anything is anonymous? IMO, the reason to be a shy Tory wrt polling is more urgent than in Britain where it’s only scorn.
    I suggest the phenomenon covers a considerably larger proportion of voters than we’d imagine if the fear were only of being lumped with nutcases. Whether that will cover the current differences is hard to say.
    I’d guess it’s stronger in blue states where the extra votes probably wouldn’t matter.

  43. To add to Matt SE’s comment…

    It goes beyond just being optimistic about trump. Nobody has a basis to know exactly what trump will do. Nobody.

    Just last week we saw a huge reversal of trump’s headline policy on illegal immigrants.

    If he is so mutable on that, what will he be for all else he says?

    Since we are left to guess, we have to go with his history, which is largely leftist.

    Then we have to add caution for the most extreme positions he has stated, as they must be a possibility as well.

    Then we have to make some judgement about his temperament and ethics – this campaign has demonstrated a volatility in his reactions to even small things, and a propensity to be self focused vs grounded in some governing set of principles.

    To conclude that there is NOT “a single thing trump has said that — if implemented — would be disaster” is well beyond simple optimism.

    There is a huge downside risk with trump to the country, as well as a threat to conservatism’s political representation (extremely important if we think that conservative principles / policies are needed to resolve the problems we face).

    There is little upside potential to compensate for all that downside risk, as trump looks to be as much a big government, executive branch power grab, as clinton, and perhaps more so.

  44. “There are lots of idle threats being thrown around by Trumpkins now about exacting revenge on this group or that group, but if Trump loses big their influence will diminish.

    The fence-sitters are the ones who need to learn a lesson from this, and they just might because they’re at least open to self-reflection, unlike most Trumpkins.” – Matt SE

    Right. A blowout is required to diminish the legitimacy of the alt-r / populist / trumpism brand of / approach to politics. It has to be seen as a losing proposition. That would make the job much easier for conservatism to rebound.

    That said, a blowout sends a powerful public “message” that clinton has a “mandate”. I don’t think a rejection of trump is necessarily so, but it would be certain that the Dems and the MSM would play it up as such.

    I’d rather there be a rejection of both with a solid Libertarian support.

    Odds for that are low as folks cannot break out of the binary paradigm, and may just find trump so scary as to vote clinton to ensure he doesn’t get in.

  45. “Get over yourself” in this context is about trump’s “loud NY” style. It glosses over all the other legitimate concerns as if it were only about trump’s style.

    If one cannot see any possible danger from any of trump’s statements if fulfilled, then all that remains is style.

    Of course, if that was all there was, then, yes, several more of us would be on the trump train too.

  47. “lie back and think” of the Supreme Court, or

    “lie back and think” at least it’s not Hillary, or

    just say “La La La La La” and hope for the best.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑