May 22, 2016

"It is the first time Trump has vaulted over Clinton in the poll and shows the advancement of the New York businessman over the past six months."

"But instead of focusing on Trump's surge, the Post highlighted the feeling among the unfavorable view voters have of both candidates, and that Clinton is more qualified."

From "Begrudging WaPo poll: Trump 46%, Clinton 44%."

Here's the underlying WaPo piece, which is by Dan Balz and Scott Clement. Sample paragraph:
Among registered voters, Clinton runs away from Trump on such attributes as having the right experience to be president, having the personality and temperament to serve in the Oval Office and having realistic policy proposals. Trump’s strongest calling card is as a change agent. The two are judged more or less evenly on honesty and trustworthiness, on strength of leadership and on keeping the country safe.

75 comments:

SteveR said...

Yeah going up against Hillary's great experience is a real challenge. So vast, with such a great record of accomplishments. A lesser candidate would rely on gender or her husband's record.

MisterBuddwing said...

More like vaulted to a statistical dead heat, which, if I were Hillary Clinton, would still make me extremely nervous.

Chuck said...

It's within the margin of error.

How is that "vaulting over" anything?

You used to be so careful about language, Professor Althouse. Before Trump.

MisterBuddwing said...

It's the Examiner that used the word "vaulted," not the Professor.

Tommy Duncan said...

Being the voice of the establishment during a time of change is difficult. The WaPo is bitterly clinging to their "qualified" candidate as the anti-establishment tsunami washes over them.

Schadenfreude.

tim in vermont said...

Registered voters skew Democrat.

Chuck said...


MisterBuddwing said...
It's the Examiner that used the word "vaulted," not the Professor.


I knew that. It is the kind of careless usage that she customarily exposes and criticizes. And does a good job at that!

I don't understand why Althouse has gotten so soft on her general usage criticism in relation to anything Trump. I don't know what her game really is, in connection with Trump, unless perhaps it is in a hope that a Trumpish takeover of the Republican Party, while laden with ignorance, also helps diminish at least some of the traditional Republican boundaries on culture war issues.


Paul said...

Right experience? At what? She did NOTHING as a senator, not one accomplishment. Advanced not one foreign policy achievement in her four years as Secretary of State.

In fact, she dropped the ball repeatedly. Benghazi and the Lybian overthrow of Qudaffi just being the two worst failures.

She has the WRONG STUFF. A track record that points to an even worse presidency than Obama's.

I voted for Cruz, but I'll gladly take Trump over Hillary and/or Bernie.

tim in vermont said...

It's almost as if the lab rats started voting about how the lab should be run.

Christopher said...

Yeah, but that's only because the Bernie fans are really bitter right now.

If the polls look the same or even more favorable to Trump two or three weeks after Hillary clinches then I imagine there'll be panic.

Laslo Spatula said...

Trump or Sinatra?

"The best revenge is massive success."

"Don't get even, get mad."

"The big lesson in life, baby, is never be scared of anyone or anything."

"The best is yet to come."

"Don't tell me. Suggest. But don't tell me."

"As you may know, I have many good friends in the press who, unfortunately, have thus far refused to identify themselves and go public."

"What I do with my life is of my own doing. I live it the best way I can.”

I am Laslo.

tim in vermont said...

They can't talk about her one achievement, which was stiffening Obama's spine on bin Laden. She played Maggie Thatcher to the dithering Obama. Too bad the blood thirsty hag doesn't have Thatcher's judgment.

tim in vermont said...

Jill Stein gets 5% and the Socialists get matching funds next election. That will put a scare into the Democrat sell outs.

Sebastian said...

Hillary's "experience" is another ripe target for Trump. Suppressing bimbo eruptions and not believing women: great experience! Hanging on to rapist husband, because power is all that matters to her: great experience! Making $100K in cattle futures: yeah, right, great experience! Big CO2 emitter traveling 1M miles with nothing to show for it: great experience! Pushing Libya into chaos and lying about it: great experience! Exposing secrets to enemies and selling favors to foreigners: great experience!

David Begley said...

The evidence continues to accumulate for Obama indicting Hillary. And Barack likes Joe way more than Hillary. Hillary is not that likeable.

chickelit said...

Chuck asks: How is that "vaulting over" anything?

It's called poll vaulting.

buwaya puti said...

I agree, wait a few weeks. Better, wait till September.

Eric said...

Your sample paragraph shows how they are learning to frame questions so that Hillary will appear to have support. Science!

Crimso said...

"Registered voters skew Democrat."

Of course. There are many more dead people than alive.

JT said...

The bad news for hilLIARy is the breakdown of those in the sample in this poll. Of the 1005 people surveyed, the breakdown by party affiliation is Democrat 33%, Republican 25% and Independent 33%. Among registered voters, it was Democrat 34%, Republican 27% and Independent 33%. That's a +8% and +7% advantage for hilLIARy respectively. With such a skewed sample size in this poll she should be quaking in her boots over these results.

tim in vermont said...

It's funny how the Democrats can't connect the single dot to get to the source of the 100K was a major polluter of Arkansas's rivers.

And who remembers the Democrats led the hatefest against the woman who accused BJC of rape when she had 5 witnesses and he offered no evidence based refutation.

Mary Beth said...

Because history has shown us that the most qualified candidate is sure to win!

madAsHell said...

on such attributes as having the right experience to be president, having the personality and temperament

How can anyone come to such a conclusion??
Trump has a CV with demonstrable success, and failure.
Hillary has a car load of lies, and lady parts that even her philandering husband won't touch.

Dan Balz and Scott Clement. Remember these names, and discount everything they say.

AprilApple said...

Clinton - the experienced crook.

Michael K said...

"I don't understand why Althouse has gotten so soft on her general usage criticism in relation to anything Trump."

Chuck, anybody who doesn't hate Trump and join "#NeverTrump" is soft to you. Let's face it. You are a diminishing minority and will be left with your own tiny party. You and Romney and Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry.

Big Mike said...

I voted for Cruz, but I'll gladly take Trump over Hillary and/or Bernie.

@Paul, me too, except I was initially for Carly Fiorina but she had dropped out of the race before the primaries got around to Virginia. What I don't get is how a single person could have so many high-level opportunities (Senator, senior cabinet official) yet have negligible accomplishments to show for it. Make that negligible positive accomplishments -- destabilized countries and dead ambassadors aren't much of an accomplishment.

Better for the United States if Hillary had stayed home and baked chocolate chip cookies.

buwaya puti said...

I think one lesson of poll analysis is that response skews by party registration doesn't matter much. Many polls were criticized for that, but did not subsequently seem to be far off
The big factor that skews polls vis a vis actual results is turnout.

traditionalguy said...

We await the moment when the half boiled frogs accept being Hillary Stew or leap out at the Trump call. Stay tuned.

mockturtle said...

Denial, as they say, is not just a river in Egypt.

tim in vermont said...

Chuck is playing outrage limbo.

Ann Althouse said...

I quote things all the time without telling you what to think.

My standard is interestingness.

Bruce Hayden said...

Something interesting to me about the claim that Hillary has the experience is that to some extent, it parallels women's claim for equal pay for equal work. Going through the motions and wearing the right uniform are what are counted as doing the work. I remember a discussion with my mother some 50 years ago, on how she managed to be at the top of her class in high school, despite being totally unauthentic. Girls back then could ace PE by just being agreeable and showing up every day in a clean uniform. Not so the boys, who were graded primarily on performance - which is why I took band instead in HS to keep my GPA up. And then women wonder why guys get paid more, when the guys stay later and put their jobs ahead of the rest of their lives, while the gals go home on time to spend time with their family and friends. Hillary showed went through all the right motions, showing up every day in PE in a clean uniform, and wonders why no one outside her echo chamber takes her claim of experience seriously. When I hear about her million miles of air travel, I ask what she actually accomplished in all that flitting around the world, and also whether she might have done better picking up the phone instead. After all, there were few of her peers,, or even heads of state who wouldn't have picked up the phone for a call from the chief diplomat for the most powerful country in the world (at the time). And really ditto for her Senate career - in 8 years, she never did more than just show up for work. She never put herself out for anything of value in those eight years. Nothing. And somehow, we are supposed to trust her to run this country because she showed up for PE in a clean uniform every day? How do we know if she can really do the job? We don't, but do know that she exhibited extraordinarily bad judgement at times when Secretary of State. The only place where she showed any competence while in or near public office was in how much money she could scam by selling influence (including US foreign policy), and how many women could she destroy whom her husband had sexually assaulted or engaged in improper workplace behavior. Everything else was going through the motions to look like she was doing something important.

Paul said...

"You are a diminishing minority and will be left with your own tiny party. You and Romney and Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry."

C'mon man it's bigger than that! Erick Erickson and George Will will be there too! lol

Bruce Hayden said...

@Michael K - you forgot JEB Bush, who seems to still be butt hurt for being called low energy and blowing all those millions of dollars from his family's friends, with only a handful of delegates to show for it.

mtrobertslaw said...

As for Hillary baking cookies,comprehending even the simplest cookie recipes has always given her trouble.

AprilApple said...

Hillary - the experienced criminal.

Fabi said...

It's "real Republican" Chuck coming to Hillary's defense - I knew you had it in you!

Fabi said...

Don't forget Paul Ryan for that exclusive club -- he still has a runny diaper over Trump.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
It's "real Republican" Chuck coming to Hillary's defense - I knew you had it in you!


I have two short posts in this thread, and not one of them mentions a single Democrat, or anything about Democrats.

And yet you have the temerity to accuse me of defending a Democrat about whom I've never had anything good to say.

This is what is so evil and ugly and stupid about Trumpism. That you all are equating criticism of Trump, with pro-Democrat leftism.

Fuck you all. I am going to keep the message simple, and repetitive which is what the Trumpettes seem to prefer. Trump is a birther, a truther, a vaxxer. He's a stupid man, who can't answer complicated questions. I don't like him and I will never like him. I may vote for him, so that another Democrat cannot place another presidential term's worth of federal judges. But I don't trust Trump and I don't respect him. Or any of his supporters, for that matter.

Laslo Spatula said...

Sisero Wong, Strip-Club Bouncer.

Yeah, I'm half-Chinese. What the fuck does that matter?

I'm standing by the entrance to the stage when I hear a commotion coming from the dressing room.

Now some people might think it is fantastic to have a job where you can go into the strippers' dressing room, but it ain't all that. Especially the bathroom: you'd be surprised by how many of the girls take a junk-food-and-drugs shit right before going on stage, then they back that nasty ass up right into some patron's face. White people.

Anyway, two of the girls are pushing at each other, which looks funny as hell with them tottering on their stripper heels. I pull them apart and sit them down onto their folding chairs, where they sulk and light menthol cigarettes.

Turns out they got into it over Hillary versus Trump. Misty is for Hillary because she thinks it would be great for a woman to be President; Lexus is against Hillary because Hillary is a cunt. That was pretty much the gist of it.

Most of the girls here like Trump -- they like a man who can appreciate a good-looking woman, and they are all looking for little Trumps of their own: typical stripper dreams.

Misty is due up next, so she stubs out her cigarette and then takes a loose shit that smells like roadkill and hot sauce before heading out onto the stage.

Well, in the front row is a patron in a "Bernie 2016" shirt. Misty stares at him hard, then backs that ass right into his face. He looks excited at first, but then starts to gag uncontrollably. I think he's going to puke right there, but he manages to make his way to the bathroom. Misty looks pleased.

I guess my point is stripping and politics don't mix. And be suspicious of where that stripper's ass has been.

I am Laslo.

edutcher said...

Her "experience" was mostly as a placeholder. Anything she actually did turned into a disaster.

Sammy Finkelman said...

On Face the Nation they had a poll that showed Hillary Clinton just one point ahead of Trump in Florida, and 5 points in Ohio.

That doesn't make too much sense, as Florida is a more Democratic state than Ohio. (and that should only be stronger with all the Puerto Ricans who have moved to Florida recently - most not registered yet, though)

Any polls that show what members of this party or that party would do are ot reliable, because party identification is not fixed in many states, and can change with the decision to vote for this or that candidate.

Fabi said...

Shorter Chuck: "Whaaaaaaaaa!"

Charlie Eklund said...

David Begley said...
The evidence continues to accumulate for Obama indicting Hillary. And Barack likes Joe way more than Hillary. Hillary is not that likeable.

Well, as a famous oaf...no, a famous clown...no, a famous buffoon...yeah, that's the ticket...as a famous buffoon once said, Hillary is "likeable enough."

Sammy Finkelman said...

The New York Times/CBS News poll that was on the front page of the New York Times on Friday showed that:

Close to two thirds of all voters think the candidate (Trump 66%, Hillary 60%) does not share their values.

Close to two thirds of all voters think the candidate (64% in bith cases) is not honest and trustworthy.

Somewhat more than half of all voters thinks the candidate (Trump 55%, Hillary 54%) shows strong qualities of leadership.

But Trumo comes out worse than Hillary in the question of does the candidate have the right kind of temperament. It's about 50-50 for Hillary (49% no, 48% yes) bit it's 70% no for Trump. (27% yes)

This is of course, not the exact same people for both Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Republican voters think their party is divided (by a margin of 84-14) but only about half of Democratic votersd think their party is divided (48% divided, 50% united)

Close to half of Republican voters are mostlty discouraged about the future of their party (43% discouraged to 55% mostly hopefl) but Democrats are mostly still hopeful (17% mostly discouraged, 80% mostly hopeful)

Unfavorability vs Favorability among all registered voters (this can be mildly unfavorable)

Trump: 55-26 Unfavorable.

Hillary: 52-31% Unfavorable

Sanders: 33-41% - more Favorable than unfavorable.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Brue Hayden:

And really ditto for her Senate career - in 8 years, she never did more than just show up for work.

The same thing was really true for George Bush the Elder. Bob Dole sasid he had a "record not a resume" but I think it dfidn't help him, becaus enot enough people understood.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/1987/nov/09/1988_presidential_race/

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/10/us/dole-makes-his-presidential-bid-official.html

''I offer a record, not a resume,'' Mr. Dole told the crowd in an allusion to Mr. Bush. ''A track record of nearly 11,000 votes in Congress and 27 years of leadership that says, 'I can make a difference, I have made a difference, I will make a difference.' ''

Curious George said...

Chuck said...
It's within the margin of error.

How is that "vaulting over" anything?

You used to be so careful about language, Professor Althouse. Before Trump.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MisterBuddwing said...
It's the Examiner that used the word "vaulted," not the Professor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck said...

MisterBuddwing said...
It's the Examiner that used the word "vaulted," not the Professor.


I knew that. It is the kind of careless usage that she customarily exposes and criticizes. And does a good job at that!

I don't understand why Althouse has gotten so soft on her general usage criticism in relation to anything Trump. I don't know what her game really is, in connection with Trump, unless perhaps it is in a hope that a Trumpish takeover of the Republican Party, while laden with ignorance, also helps diminish at least some of the traditional Republican boundaries on culture war issues.

What a steaming pile. You aren't fooling anyone.

boycat said...

Of course the truth of the matter is that Trump has been way out in front of Hillary and everybody else for over a year. The MSM's push polls reflect the way the media and the establishments of both parties want things to appear to be, not the way things are. Polls long ago stopped being anything anybody can believe.

Curious George said...

Jack Nicklaus: Retired Professional Golfer Endorses Donald Trump, Says He Is 'Awakening the Country'

"I like what Donald's done, he's turning America upside down," Nicklaus said on "CBS Sunday Morning." He also said Trump is "not stupid" and that he will vote for Trump if his name is on the ticket.

Comanche Voter said...

Well the Los Angeles Times (not been a serious newspaper for at least 20 years now) climbed on the Andrea Mitchell bandwagon today and said that The Trumpster had repeated "unsubstantiated accusations of rape" against Billy Jeff Clinton.

Now just wait a cotton pickin' minute here. Juanita Broadrick (sp?) made an accusation of rape against Bill Clinton. There is nothing "unsubstantiated" about the fact of the accusation. Whether the accusation was accurate or truthful or not is an issue that can be debated. But the fact of the accusation--once made--can not be denied (although the little Clinton knee pad wearers in the press do their best). I won't even get into the Hildebeests and other feminists suggestions that a woman's claim of rape should always be believed.

And the Times sings along in the "be true to your school" fashion of a mindless teenager, and says "Just wait until Hillary starts to dig into Trump's marital misadventures"--crude treatment of women, misogny and such.

I dunno; I think that the Donald has shown an ability to get into the minds of, not to say, dance on the foreheads of those who oppose him. The LA Times "reporters" aka Democrat hacks with bylines, will still be all wee wee'd up come next spring.

MisterBuddwing said...

Well the Los Angeles Times (not been a serious newspaper for at least 20 years now) climbed on the Andrea Mitchell bandwagon today and said that The Trumpster had repeated "unsubstantiated accusations of rape" against Billy Jeff Clinton.

I'm no lawyer, but the word Andrea Mitchell used was "discredited," meaning the allegation was proven false.

Here, the word is "unsubstantiated," which I take to mean, the allegation has not been proven to be true or false.

As far as I'm concerned, Mitchell was wrong. The LA Times was right.

Yancey Ward said...

The media is starting to wake up to the fact that Trump might well beat Clinton handily. Biden as the nominee at a brokered convention grows more likely by the day.

Szoszolo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

"I think that the Donald has shown an ability to get into the minds of, not to say, dance on the foreheads of those who oppose him."

It just amazes me to see how agile Trump is with the nasty allegations the left has been making and will make. It isn;t just his devoted supporters, which I am not, but how well he has judged the general public.

Reagan was somewhat similar but an older model. When Reagan was running there was still a relatively educated voter class. No more.

Read the Lincoln-Douglas debates to see what has happened to the public level of information.

For that matter, read a California sixth grade reader from 1914, to see what has happened.

Fabi said...

One of the lefty pundits on the Sunday shows observed that Trump was always playing offense.

Yippee! About damned time. The democrats are having difficulty processing this unconventional approach. They're so used to having the ball and making the right play on their heels that they've forgotten how to defend their own goal.

Love Trump or hate him -- no other Republican candidate could have controlled the news cycle like he has.

Paul said...

"Love Trump or hate him -- no other Republican candidate could have controlled the news cycle like he has."

And yet some people keep yelling at the top of their lungs how stupid he is.

tim in vermont said...

The rape charge against Clinton has been substantiated by five witnesses under oath who faced prison for lying, six if you count Broaddrick.

Clinton's denial is unsubstantiated despite the amount of documentary evidence that surely must be available as to the whereabouts of a sitting governor.

tim in vermont said...

LA Times needs to buy a dictionary or stop with the outright lies.

Fabi said...

@Paul -- Trump is clearly stupid and he should listen to his detractors. First he took his unauthorized message directly to those weird entities called voters and schlonged a few hundred million dollar campaigns along the way. Obviously stupid. He then started making mean comments about Hillary and ended up ahead of her in the polls. Just more stupidity. He should obviously stop with the stupidity and hire some of those fancy campaign consultants which delivered us Presidents McCain and Romney. Boy is he stupid.

/sarc

tim in vermont said...

Vaulted over the vaunted Clinton would have been better.

rhhardin said...

Trump vaults over Clinton must come from a dirty limerick.

It doesn't end "and roll of the stage o one ball" though. That's another one.

rehajm said...

When Reagan was running there was still a relatively educated voter class.

Evidence?

M Jordan said...

The 2% is certainly within the margin of error so Trump haters can celebrate that. What they can't celebrate is three of the last four major polls have shown Trump up: Fox he's up 3, WP up 2, and Rasmussrn up 5. Battleground showed a dead even race. Gravis showed Hillary up 2. Only NY Times shows a better outcome for Clinton: she's up 6. Average those out and you've got Trump up about a point.

Now, what was all that talk about him not being able to beat Hillary? That narrative is broken. And that is not good news for Mrs. Clinton.

tim in vermont said...

Since Trump is ahead in the poll average now, the MOE argument gets weaker.

Michael K said...

"When Reagan was running there was still a relatively educated voter class.

Evidence?"

Well, there is this.

And this.

By the late 1990s, however, the United States no longer held the advantage in secondary-school completion rates; it had fallen to the average among the advanced industrial democracies that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), ranking behind Japan, Korea, Germany, France, Ireland, and other European countries (see Figure 3). Moreover, this is just a measure of the quantity of schooling provided by a nation; the United States also trails other industrialized nations in the quality of education it provides.

The International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement (IEA) has administered tests of math and science in countries around the world since the 1960s. The most recent of these is the TIMSS. (IEA has forgone tests of verbal skill because it thinks that language differences might invalidate international comparisons of verbal ability.) Most of the advanced industrial democracies participate in the survey, along with several developing countries.

Results from the IEA tests place the United States in the middle of the pack internationally, scoring well below the average of the highest-performing countries-Singapore, Korea, Japan, Belgium, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, and Austria. The U.S. average scores were almost exactly the same in the mid-1990s as they were in the early 1970s (see Figure 4). In other words, the IEA tests reveal the same stagnant pattern as the SAT and NAEP.

More troublesome is the fact that the U.S. standing in the world deteriorates as students advance through their education. As Eric Hanushek has shown, they score above the international average at age 9, though their average score is still 60 percent of a standard deviation below that of the highest-performing country (Korea) and 20 percent below that of the Netherlands. At age 13, however, they slip below the international average, a full standard deviation behind world-leading Singapore and 50 percent below the Netherlands. By age 17, the United States outranks only Lithuania, Cyprus, and South Africa, falling nearly a full standard deviation behind the Netherlands (Korea and Singapore did not participate in this survey). These results are consistent with those from the NAEP: progress among younger American children, but not sustained as they age. These outcomes cannot be explained away by claiming that the United States is testing, at age 17, a broader swath of students than other nations are. As we have seen, the United States is no longer the world leader in secondary education.


Is that enough "evidence?"

tim in vermont said...

I think the fact that these kids don't recognize fascism when it is offered to them like a poison apple by Hillary, after the hell it created last century is all the evidence you need doc.

William said...

The charges against Clinton were not so much unsubstantiated as unpublicized. The charges against Thomas were not so much substantiated as publicized. I'd like to see HBO broadcast a five part miniseries about the women in Clinton's life. It would be informative and entertaining. They'd probably hire Natalie Portman to play Monica and portray her as a demented stalker.........Who had a more successful marriage--Clinton or Trump? Trump seems to have mastered the art of the divorce. His pre nups are probably the romantic ideal for billionaires everywhere.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well the WaPo will be damned if it can't convince the electorate to go along with the candidate it bought.

Brando said...

My read from those polls is that we're looking at two incredibly unpopular figures, and whoever wins will do so by default. Whatever little I think of Trump, if he pulls off an upset it will be nice to see Hillary, Bill and Debbie Schultz made fools of after all their machinations. I just would love to see Hillarys face when she faces her husband who encouraged Trumps run.

We may have no chance of a decent president next year, but I'll be damned if I don't get entertainment value out of this!

William said...

If this is a poll of registered voters and Trump is ahead, Hillary has seriouos problems.

mockturtle said...

It's called poll vaulting.

That's good, chickelit!

Jonathan Graehl said...

Frustrating, isn't it, Chuck? You keep insisting you're right, but we'll never see it.

Chuck said...

Jonathon:

What I have asserted is that Trump has been a birther, a truther and a vaxxer. Those views -- each one on its own -- ought to disqualify a holder from any serious national debating platform.

Can you defend Trump on any of those particulars? If so, it would be a first for the Althouse blog.

I can't think of too many other controversial positions I have taken. I never predicted a collapse for Trump's popularity, although I was rooting for same. I have said I will probably hold my nose and vote for Trump. I have said that in any event, I thought this was an eminently winnable year for a Republican, even if one includes Trump as a putative Republican.

Nobody can possibly dispute the phone book-sized list of stupid and incomprehensible things that Trump has said in the last 20 days and the last 20 years. That part isn't in dispute. All that is at issue is how much people decide to ignore in favor of #NeverDemocrats.

Where have I gone so terribly wrong? If you are suggesting that I need to set aside my personal loathing, however warranted, in support of Trump to block another Democratic term, I plead guilty. So do it without me. My own personal integrity requires separation from Trump. For the future of my party and all future elections after 2016.

Chuck said...

Jonathan; sorry, not "Jonathon."

mikee said...

How many millions of votes can Hillary count on obtaining, after the polling places close to the public and her precinct officers start counting the votes, both real and imagined? I'd guess, enough to overcome any number of Trump votes that is already publicly known.

Trump will have to pull a Wisconsin "lost precinct" trick to win this one, getting Hillary on record with a certain number of votes before he reports his own actual total, to win the election.