December 20, 2016

"Voters Really Did Switch To Trump At The Last Minute."

Writes Dan Hopkins at FiveThirtyEight, based on panel studies.
In all, Trump picked up 4.0 percentage points among people who hadn’t been with him in mid-October, and shed just 1.7 percentage points for a net gain of 2.3 points. Clinton picked up a smaller fraction — 2.3 points — and shed 4.0 points for a net loss of 1.7 points....

As to what moved these Americans in the final weeks of the campaign, the panel has little to say. The timing of James Comey’s letter to Congress — released on Friday, Oct. 28 — makes it one potential explanation....

Still, we shouldn’t discount the possibility that voters might have gravitated to Trump anyhow. Research has long suggested that over the course of a campaign, partisans come home to their party’s candidate. Between mid-October and our post-election wave, Trump picked up almost 4 percentage points from people who had backed Romney four years before, suggesting that Republican identifiers were doing just that. Trump’s media coverage in the final two weeks was markedly more positive than it had been during the prior weeks, and it’s possible that shift in coverage was just the opening some Republicans and Republican-leaning voters needed to get behind Trump.

124 comments:

Hagar said...

Also that some Democrats who had been hoping against hope that their party would show signs of coming to its senses, finally gave up and went for trump.

Mike said...

Research has long suggested that over the course of a campaign, partisans come home to their party’s candidate.

True for Trump. But also Hillary's support within certain groups also underperformed historic trends, and really underperformed vs. Obama's "coalition" results.

Michael McClain said...

He's just trying to cover his mistakes in pushing for the Hildebeast.

mccullough said...

The people who said Trump wouldn't win are now telling us why Trump won. I'm skeptical

kentuckyliz said...

I find it intriguing (and in my moments of schadenfreude, gratifying) that Hillary's margin of loss in the Blue Wall states she lost < the number of people who voted but did not vote for President at all and left it blank. ROTFL

Brando said...

I think the main reason was the natural shift back to party preferences. Hillary's earlier lead had most to do with Republican-leaners who couldn't grapple with voting for Trump, and considered third parties or staying home, right up to the end when they took all into account and held their nose and went with the party. Notice that while say Gary Johnson had been polling in the high single digits, he ended with 3%--I'm betting most of that went to Trump, to pull him within 2% but probably over the hump in the key swing states.

What the late coverage of Hillary did reminded voters of who she is--when they weren't thinking of her, they could dicker between Trump, staying home, and going third party. When they were thinking of Hillary, it made the Republicans go with their nominee, just enough.

holdfast said...

So this is another way of saying that turnout matters.

Obama was VERY good at getting his fans to turnout. Although I personally believe that he is grossly over-rated in every way (except for his stunning success as America's best gun salesman ever) the fact is that he possess an appeal that works extraordinarily well on a small majority of the voting public. I am apparently not only immune to it, but actually blind to it, but I cannot deny its efficacy.

But clearly it's non-transferable.

So the net upshot is that 2016 was not really a tranformative election - rather it's a return to the norm after the two oddball Obama victories. Not that the GOP has any sort of permanent majority [in the Electoral College], but rather elections will continue to be hard-fought slogs where turnout in key states remains paramount, except when one or another party puts up a black swan candidate, like Obama.

MikeR said...

I think Comey is a silly explanation. He found some more emails, oh, never mind, they weren't anything much. After all that went before, how can anyone believe that that would move voters?

vicari valdez said...

it seems that everyone just voted for their own party as usual. as bizarre as this election seemed it was pretty run-of-the-mill in a lot of ways.

Brando said...

"The people who said Trump wouldn't win are now telling us why Trump won. I'm skeptical"

I don't know--predicting the future is very different from analyzing the past. It's why pre-game predictions in sports are dicey but the analysts can usually explain how one team beat the other by focusing on the running game, getting fewer penalties, etc.

rehajm said...

Inventing more support for the Comey-ate-my-homework-defense. In the interest of bipartisanship Trump's camp knew he was going to win before the COmey letter

alan markus said...

A few articles like this appeared recently. Seems that coming up to the election, Clinton felt secure about winning the election (Electoral College votes) but not so sure about the popular vote. Obviously Trump went for the Electoral vote strategy and not too concerned about the optics of losing the popular vote.

DNC Poured Millions Into Chicago Fearing Hillary Might Win Election But Lose Popular Vote


Convinced they’d easily win the Electoral College, in the closing days of the campaign the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign were worried they’d lose the popular vote to Donald Trump.

As such, rather than focus on swings states like Michigan or Wisconsin, the DNC followed a plan conceived by interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile that poured millions into places like Democratic Party strongholds like Chicago and New Orleans in an attempt to bolster Clinton’s overall vote total.



traditionalguy said...

Good grief. More smoke and mirrors. The deluge of first time voters or first time since 1984 were never accounted for. The highly paid accountant was therefore wrong all along. Maybe they never saw the Trump crowds and mile long lines wanting to be part of a winning American movement.

That movement is still moving on. And for their own good, McConnell and Ryan had better not try to stop that train.

Even Kellyann is moving to DC for a Whitehouse role, while Melania is being kept in the Tower of New York. Hmmm.

mccullough said...

I see no breakdown here between early voting states and states with no early voting. Do only partisans in early voting states vote early? Comey's letter had no effect on people who voted before it was released. Michigan and Pennsylvania don't have early voting, but Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa do. Why not analyze who voted early and who voted on Election Day isn't those states.

Also, the polls in the individual states in the Midwest were wrong. Garbage in, garbage out. This is excuse making masquerading as analysis

William said...



Might I posit that Obama got people to turn how becasue he's got charisma. I don't like him; I see through him; and his charisma is not at all to my liking. But my guess is that is personal charisma is in large part responsible for his success through undergrad and even through law school. He sure as hell never PUBLISHED anything that substantiated any kind of intellect.

So for the election of 2016, Trump won simply because–warts and all—he is far more charismatic (likeable) than HRC. She doesn't come across as genuine, nice or likeable — even in the best of circumstances. I've seen Trump work a crowd in person, and they flat LOVE him.

Just a theory. What say you all?

mockturtle said...

So many theories. Can't they just accept the fact that people can actually think for themselves and are not always influenced by media coverage?

cubanbob said...

Did the Democrats really think that pissing on the white working class wouldn't have a negative effect on the vote? Perhaps they really are that stupid.

Michael K said...

"except for his stunning success as America's best gun salesman ever)"

Jerry Brown is working on competition in California but Obama will still beat him since national beats state, except in Hillary's popular vote,

Trump's campaign will eventually be seen for the game changer it was.

It may take a while as the MSM will resist the conclusion for a long time.

Michael K said...

"I've seen Trump work a crowd in person, and they flat LOVE him."

My impression is that his energy was such a contrast to Hillary's desultory campaigning. He is 70 and looks 50.

Brando said...

"DNC Poured Millions Into Chicago Fearing Hillary Might Win Election But Lose Popular Vote"

Good lord, if this is true then I take back what I said in another thread about not being too hard on her strategists. That's political malpractice.

holdfast said...

@Brando

One worries if DWS would have made the same error? If not, then I suppose you can credit the DBC hack for taking DWS off the board and replacing her with the figurehead/CNN commentator Brazile.

holdfast said...

Sorry, "wonders" not "worries".

mccullough said...

Next they'll say the Comey Letter discouraged blacks from voting in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Milwaukee.

James said...

Both my 72-year old mother in Virginia and a 35-year old co-worker in PA told me they walked in to the voting booth with every intention of voting for Gary Johnson, but at the last second switched to Trump, because they just could not stomach Hillary.

eric said...

Someone explain to me how polling accounted for Clinton winning huge in places like California and New York, thus skewing national polls in her favorite. Do they account for this?

Maybe, just maybe, the polls are BS. Like the media, they coordinate with special interests and Democrats and work toward a specific outcome.

When Americans start to realize this, things will improve dramatically.

Chuck said...

Throughout the campaign, it seems that everybody got to indulge in their own version of, I know it's just me and all, but I am seeing so much support where I live for Trump; yard signs I've never seen before, and people I'd never suspect would support him, etc., etc..."

I have my own version, fwiw. Almost every Republican I know voted for Kasich in the Michigan primary, and almost none of them ever voiced a word of support for Trump, until mere days were left in the campaign. These are all loyal Republicans. And almost every one that I am aware of, did indeed vote for Trump on election day. It seems to me, to mesh perfectly with what the polls showed in the last few weeks, and in exit polling and final results. Mainstream Republicans, who had resisted Trump as much as they could, came back to vote for the Republican candidate.

Brando said...

"One worries if DWS would have made the same error? If not, then I suppose you can credit the DBC hack for taking DWS off the board and replacing her with the figurehead/CNN commentator Brazile."

Possibly, though DWS was such an idiot (or at least came across as one--maybe she hid her competence well?--that I'd find it easier to believe that she'd given them informal advice to do that.

Nonapod said...

In the post-post-post-mortem of the 2016 election, I've read all sorts of theories, speculations, and cogitations about what really went on. In absence of stuff like facts and actual proof I continue to be skeptical of anybodies ideas (including my own).

We know that the polls were wrong. Why should we believe any pet theory presented by someone who obviously championed these polls were correct almost as the Word of God? Why should I believe anybody beyond question, especially people who seem better at wishcasting rather than forecasting?

The moral of this story should be: If you think you know what you're talking about, you probably don't.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

First, there were Profits (sic), hoping to influence the election. Now, there are clairvoyants bitterly clinging to a prophecy. Perhaps Americans discovered their dignity and rejected Pro-Choice.

Chuck said...

eric said...
Someone explain to me how polling accounted for Clinton winning huge in places like California and New York, thus skewing national polls in her favorite. Do they account for this?


Well the answer of course is individual state polling. But individual state polling doesn't have the same catchy newsiness as national polls, and individual states have higher margins of error.

Indiana's primary polling was terrible and the pollsters all knew it. I just don't think that the New York Times readership, or viewers of NBC news, care so much about a poll of likely Wisconsin voters.

And by the way; the national polls were actually pretty good, in 2016. The actual results were within the margin(s) of error. They did not predict the electoral college outcome, which was freakishly close and almost beyond any reliable prediction.

Brando said...

"Mainstream Republicans, who had resisted Trump as much as they could, came back to vote for the Republican candidate."

Similar cases in my neck of the woods. Some of my friends were Trump fans from the beginning, but the others who eventually voted for him did so reluctantly and more out of faith in their party and revulsion at Clinton and the Democrats than anything else.

tcrosse said...

Late in the campaign, when HRC figured she had it in the bag, she got annoyingly smug. That might have turned off a few votes.

The Godfather said...

THE RUSSIANS!!!! IT WAS THE RUSSIANS WHO DID IT! Haven't you been paying attention?

Brando said...

"We know that the polls were wrong. Why should we believe any pet theory presented by someone who obviously championed these polls were correct almost as the Word of God? Why should I believe anybody beyond question, especially people who seem better at wishcasting rather than forecasting?"

Well if we're going to learn anything from this to improve for future elections, we need to delve a bit deeper into that. The national polls, which when averaged predicted Hillary ahead by a few points in the final tallies, actually turned out to be quite accurate as her 2% lead was within the margin of error for most of these polls. (We obviously can't know how accurate they were earlier in the race, as no vote was taken then) Where the polls were wrong was in a number of states--particularly PA, WI, and MI, each of which had comfortable Clinton leads. How did they get it wrong in some states but more accurate in others (e.g., in FL)? What methodologies did they use, and how did they miss?

In 1936, the polls famously were way off (predicting a double digit landslide for Alf Landon, who lost by a double digit landslide so we're talking over 20 points off) because they weighted families with phones too heavily. If they'd never changed their methods, the polls would have remained useless. So the question here is what did the inaccurate state polls get wrong, and what did the more accurate ones get right.

Earnest Prole said...

The Comey letter? Undecideds break toward the challenger in change elections. It's Politics 101, something you would think the kids at FiveThirtyEight might have read about in college last year. Or not, apparently.

R.J. Chatt said...

The image of Hillary collapsing at the World Trade Center had nothing to do with voters' judgement of her. Neither did the image of Hillary fund raising out in the Hamptons (the entire month of August) while Trump was busting his butt holding rallies. How lucky was he, right?

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

But it wasn't the "last minute". People weren't changing their minds between signing the vote registry (or its equivalent) and actually voting. It's just not dramatic to say that the people changed their minds in the last two to three weeks of the election.

That isn't unusual though--we may entertain wild ideas about what car to buy, but when we actually start genuinely looking, reality usually intrudes. However much I may want a 1973 240Z, it makes no sense [at this time.]

Nonapod said...

What methodologies did they use, and how did they miss?

The problem I have with modern political polling is:

1) I don't trust the humans running them. Humans are notoriously bad at real objectivity. But what's worse... what's really insidious... is I believe that there's an unfortunate tendency for certain people to use polls to shape opinion rather than report it. Of course I have know proof that this phenomenon is occurring, just a bad feeling given my anecdotal life experience.

2) I don't believe their sample sizes are anywhere near large enough and broad enough to be reasonably accurate in close elections. I realize that it may not be feasible both monetarily and logistically to run a large enough poll. I don't have the answer to these problems and I wonder if it's reasonable to expect them to ever be solved at all.

I understand that it is in the polling organizations interest to be accurate, but I don't trust that they can be given these aforementioned issues.

Fabi said...

Are you saying the electoral outcome was freakishly close, Chuck? Maybe I'm not reading your comment correctly -- please clarify.

Gabriel said...

Read all the way to the bottom. This conclusion is based on surveys done in part AFTER the election.

As usual, the startling talking point is put up front, the qualifiers that weaken it to meaninglessness are put at the back.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
Are you saying the electoral outcome was freakishly close, Chuck? Maybe I'm not reading your comment correctly -- please clarify.


Yes, exactly. The electoral college outcome was freakishly close. Less than 200,000 votes in total, swinging Pennsylvania/Michigan/Wisconsin. The gross electoral outcome -- the so-called "popular vote" -- was a loss for Trump, in fact.

A week ago, Trump was talking/Tweeting about his "landslide; I think he has been cajoled away from that, because it was so patently wrong. He lost the (magisterially irrelevant) popular vote. His winning electoral total didn't rank with any of American history's real "landslides," and in fact the Trump win was a pretty close one. "Freakishly," as I said, close, when the PA/MI/WI numbers are looked at closely. Trump won Michigan by far less than the number of presidential undervotes in the state; by far less than the number of Jill Stein votes; and by far, far less than the number of Wayne County (Detroit) voters who voted for Obama in '12 but just didn't turn out at all, for anybody, in '16.

Fabi said...

2000 was freakishly close with Bush at 271 electoral votes, winning Florida by less than six hundred votes -- and four other states with their popular votes total within one percent.

Fabi said...

Trump could have lost any one or two of those states you mentioned and still won the election, Chuck. That's somewhat close from an electoral standpoint, but it doesn't begin to compare to 2000, and hardly freakish.

Brando said...

"A week ago, Trump was talking/Tweeting about his "landslide; I think he has been cajoled away from that, because it was so patently wrong."

Trump would be better served referring to his victory as a "surprise upset" because it was indeed that, and should have taught the Dems not to be so complacent. But no serious person could call it even an electoral landslide, because then we'd have to say Obama won two landslides, Bill Clinton won two landslides...in fact only compared to Bush Jr.'s two even closer electoral victories could this be a "landslide".

And the popular vote doesn't mean anything legally, but the fact that Hillary won it by 2% (greater than Gore did in 2000, or Bush's margins in 2004) takes some of the "oomph" out of the term "landslide".

A win is a win, but all this means is the GOP is going to want to improve on this in four years--they can't count on the Dems picking someone as unpopular as Hillary or Jill Stein getting enough swampies to break against the Dems.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
2000 was freakishly close with Bush at 271 electoral votes, winning Florida by less than six hundred votes -- and four other states with their popular votes total within one percent.

Can't disagree with that. Two excruciatingly close elections. 2000 being among the two or three closest in all of history.
And 2016 being unusually close, in a slightly different setting of the electoral college.
If the notion is that Trump won easily and/or handily, I think that is false.

But who cares? He won. There are only winners, and losers. There are no "mandates." There are just the numbers. 270 electoral votes. 51 in the Senate. 218 in the House. 5 on the Supreme Court.
Trump won.

Chuck said...

A win is a win, but all this means is the GOP is going to want to improve on this in four years--they can't count on the Dems picking someone as unpopular as Hillary or Jill Stein getting enough swampies to break against the Dems.

How about in two years? I said, before this election, that Republicans could get close to 60 in the Senate, after 2018.

I said that, in the context of our holding 51/52 seats this year, and getting enough votes to convict Hillary in an impeachment trial in 2019. (It does take a 2/3 vote to convict in the Senate, to be sure.)

Michael K said...

"The gross electoral outcome -- the so-called "popular vote" -- was a loss for Trump, in fact."

The popular vote plurality was California. California is now a one party state. I read the other day that Republican registration has declined by 400,000 in some recent period. Maybe since the last election. On January 15, it will be down by 400,002 when we leave.

The drop in registration is not changing to D but moving out of state.

California is now run by lunatics. There is a long list if you want evidence. Gas prices and electricity prices are much higher than Arizona.

Los Angles was going to boycott Arizona in the flap over the immigration bill two years ago until staff members quietly told the city council members that 25% of LA's electricity came from Arizona.

I work for a federal contractor and work with a number of military and ex-military people who are of modest means. They are all under pressure to afford to live here, I have talked to several who are job hunting in other states. These are skilled people in medical jobs.

One told me his belongings were all in storage and he was living with a friend until he can find job elsewhere.

This whole thing is going to bite the Democrats on the ass soon. Not just the election.

JaimeRoberto said...

My wife switched to Trump from Johnson at the last minute as a revolt against media bias. The media's Russian-under-every-bed strategy finally pushed her over the edge. She has no love for Russia. Her father was almost shot by a Russian soldier at the end of WW2. Her country was invaded and occupied by the Russians. She was almost arrested by a Russian border guard when we were on vacation. But she's pretty good at seeing through the bullshit the media were peddling.

Fabi said...

Another way to look at it -- Trump won 30 states plus ME2. That's a positive.

Brando said...

"How about in two years? I said, before this election, that Republicans could get close to 60 in the Senate, after 2018."

GOP's big advantage here is fewer seats to defend (in the Senate) in 2018, and most of those are in red states. But a lot will depend on how Trump and Congress act between now and then. If they screw the pooch (scandals, economic downturn, very unpopular legislation) the voters might decide they want to elect a check on them. The last time the GOP was riding this high was 2004, and in the 2006 elections it went to crap--even previously "safe" states like Virginia and Montana went blue.

Brando said...

"Another way to look at it -- Trump won 30 states plus ME2. That's a positive."

Number of states alone doesn't mean much--not if your states are the smaller ones. A better metric is that he has won three states that were previously a part of the "blue wall"--states that no Republican won since 1988. It widens the playing field going forward.

Hagar said...

I think it was after the 1990 census that the Democrats in California crowed they had fixed the voting districts so that no Republican would ever again hold a statewide office.

I expect that by now there are some Republicans who register as Democrats like in the former "Solid South," hoping their votes will matter in the primaries.

Can you remember when California's roads were the best in the nation and the state was generally held up as an example of good government?
Those were the days, my dear; we thought they'd never end.

Brando said...

"I think it was after the 1990 census that the Democrats in California crowed they had fixed the voting districts so that no Republican would ever again hold a statewide office."

How would that affect statewide office? Or do you mean they'd prevent the Republicans from getting a majority of the districts?

Yancey Ward said...

Mockturtle wrote:

"So many theories. Can't they just accept the fact that people can actually think for themselves and are not always influenced by media coverage?"

According to multiple stories in/on WaPo, NYTimes, and CNN, this theory is false.

Yancey Ward said...

James wrote:

"Both my 72-year old mother in Virginia and a 35-year old co-worker in PA told me they walked in to the voting booth with every intention of voting for Gary Johnson, but at the last second switched to Trump, because they just could not stomach Hillary."

This is clear evidence that the the KGB and Putin never gave up on mind-control. You should send a letter to John Brennan at the CIA so that he can put it in the report Obama has requested.

Fabi said...

@Brando -- I meant that in respect to expanding the map, which is a function of expanding appeal. I'm not sure I'll live to see Republicans winning NY, CA or IL, but several of the smaller ones are electoral insurance to some degree.

Yancey Ward said...

Eric wrote:

"Someone explain to me how polling accounted for Clinton winning huge in places like California and New York, thus skewing national polls in her favorite. Do they account for this?"

It is probably the case that the Russian government hacked the individual state polls and made it look like Clinton was going to win going away, thus making her spend less/no time in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Yancey Ward said...

Eric,

Though, to be serious for a moment and taking my PeanutButter/GWash hat off:

Yes, that is definitely an issue with the national polls. I think a few prognosticators predicted that California would be a complete wipe out for Trump more so than it was for Romney simply because there were two Democrats running for Senate in the state.

However, the state polls in the midwest were badly underrating Trump's chances.

Brando said...

"@Brando -- I meant that in respect to expanding the map, which is a function of expanding appeal. I'm not sure I'll live to see Republicans winning NY, CA or IL, but several of the smaller ones are electoral insurance to some degree."

Yeah, breaking the "blue wall" was for me the big surprise of the election. Whether this might be a long term shift or a result of this particular election we'll have to see. Though Republicans have done fine in those states with Senate and Governor elections, it's only at the Prez level that the Dems had a wall.

Brando said...

As for NY, IL and CA, I agree that it's not likely those will switch soon (without a major demographic change). Odd to think that in my childhood those were states that regularly went Republican, and now it's unthinkable.

Hagar said...

How would that affect statewide office? Or do you mean they'd prevent the Republicans from getting a majority of the districts?

You are right. What they said was that the Republicans never again would be a significant factor in the state government, or words to that effect.

And they did elect the Governator, but he was no match for the legislature.

Unknown said...

Crooked Donald!

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a51689/trump-national-security-advisor-austrian-right-wing/

The Center For Public Integrity, which is probably hiring at a frenzied pace at the moment, would like you all to sing along.

Gimme the beat, boys, and free my soul/I want to get lost in your rock and roll/And grift away.

Prospective million-dollar donors to the "Opening Day 2017" event — slated for Jan. 21, the day after inauguration, at Washington, D.C.'s Walter E. Washington Convention Center — receive a "private reception and photo opportunity for 16 guests with President Donald J. Trump," a "multi-day hunting and/or fishing excursion for 4 guests with Donald Trump, Jr. and/or Eric Trump, and team," as well as tickets to other events and "autographed guitars by an Opening Day 2017 performer."

Comanche Voter said...

It's equally possible that folks, who were going to vote, came face to face with the stark need to vote for someone. Ignoring the fringe party distractions, the choice was the Bronx Buffoon or the Dotty Dowager Duchess of Chappaqua. It was all fun and games and Never Trump for a few months, but then you had to mark that ballot. Faced with two awful choices, a number of people simply couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary--so the Trumpster was the only choice left.

Fabi said...

I think if the actions of the next administration and congress accomplish items that have a positive impact for middle America then the wall will be quite fragile for a while, Brando. If the next four years are business as usual then I think it will revert quickly.

Darrell said...

So the people that were wrong about every fucking thing--including the commenters here--are now going to give us the 411. Cool.

Darrell said...

Hillary got the lowest Electoral College vote since Michael Dukakis. That is some achievement for $1.2 billion+.

Alexander said...

As one of (if not the earliest) full-on Trump supporters here who believed he would win, my view is much more valuable than these idiots who spent the past two years screaming:

- He won't run
- He won't stay in
- He won't top 20% in a primary
- He won't win a primary in the North
- He won't win a primary in the West
- He won't top 30% in a primary
- He won't top 40% in a primary
- He won't top 50% in a primary
- He won't win an absolute majority of delegates
- He won't be competitive in a swing state
- He won't win a swing state
- He won't pierce the blue wall
- He won't be President of The United States

So fuck them - choo choo! And those of us that did vote for Trump, and knew other people who voted for Trump, and so know exactly why we voted for Trump better than these idiots... I'm not too keen on enlightening them. Let them bumble around in darkness out of the way while we go about Making America Great Again!

Comanche Voter said...

Take California (where I live) out of the equation and Hillary lost the popular election by four million votes. That's a lot of votes folks. And California (or at least urban and coastal California) is going to keep voting Democrat until the Devil needs a comfy robe and slippers to keep warm.

Bob Loblaw said...

I think Comey is a silly explanation. He found some more emails, oh, never mind, they weren't anything much. After all that went before, how can anyone believe that that would move voters?

People who were still willing to vote for Hillary by November had already made their peace with the idea of voting for a criminal. I doubt that email revelation had any effect at all.

Unknown said...

And they don't like anyone pointing out the Hitler comparison.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/trumps-security-advisor-met-with-leader-of-austrian-party-founded-by-nazis-and-loyal-to-putin/

"Donald Trump’s choice for national security advisor met at Trump Tower with the leader of a far-right Austrian political party founded in the 1950s by ex-Nazis.

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who the president-elect has tapped to coordinate national security in his administration, met several weeks ago with the head of Austria’s Freedom Party, which reached a cooperation agreement with Russia’s ruling party, reported the New York Times.

The agreement was seen a clear signal that the Kremlin is forging bonds with right-wing political parties across Europe as part of a coordinated effort to weaken Western democracies — including the United States.

Heinz-Christian Strache, the Freedom Party’s leader, announced the agreement Monday on his Facebook page, where he also revealed he’d met with Flynn last month in New York City at the building where Trump lives and has based his transition team."

Original Mike said...

"Voters Really Did Switch To Trump At The Last Minute."

Lady Liberty...Hitler?
Lady Liberty...Hitler?
Lady Liberty...Hitler?

What the hell, I'll pick Hitler
{pulls lever}

James Pawlak said...

t was pointed out to me that on election day the Democratic vote started out with a pretty healthy lead – and then the Republicans got home from work.

alan markus said...

@ Unknown; Prospective million-dollar donors to the "Opening Day 2017" event — slated for Jan. 21, the day after inauguration, at Washington, D.C.'s Walter E. Washington Convention Center — receive a "private reception and photo opportunity for 16 guests with President Donald J. Trump," a "multi-day hunting and/or fishing excursion for 4 guests with Donald Trump, Jr. and/or Eric Trump, and team," as well as tickets to other events and "autographed guitars by an Opening Day 2017 performer."

Unknown You Must Be Some Special Kind of Stupid: President Obama's inauguration planners offering special VIP access to donors willing to pay up to $1 million - Donors at the "Washington" level are offered "premium partner access" for a minimum donation of $250,000 from individuals and $1 million from corporations. The package includes four tickets to the inaugural ball, an in-demand perk with just two being held this year on inauguration night. Inaugural planners also offered $60 tickets for members of the general public, but they sold out quickly Sunday night. Tickets to the Commander In Chiefs Ball are free for invited members of the military and other guests.
 
Other perks of the Washington package include two bleacher seats to the parade, a VIP reception at a Candle Light Celebration on inauguration eve, tickets to a children's concert, co-chairs reception and a "Road Ahead" meeting featuring members of the president's finance team Saturday and tickets to a benefactors' reception to kick off the weekend.
 
The "Adams" package also promises premium partner access for $150,000 from individuals and $500,000 from corporations. It offers two tickets to the ball but not the parade bleacher seats and some other reception access.
 
Donors are offered "special partner access" that still includes ball tickets and the Candle Light Celebration at the National Building Museum for donations of $75,000 for individuals and $250,000 for corporations at the "Jefferson" level and $10,000 and $100,000 at the "Madison" level.

Darrell said...

Lady Liberty...Hitler?
Lady Liberty...Hitler?
Lady Liberty...Hitler?


I never thought of Trump as Lady Liberty, but OK. Hitler is definitely Hillary, though.

Unknown said...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/trump-family-finds-new-ways-to-monetize-the-presidency.html

Thanks to those pesky ethics experts, no one will get to pay $72,888 to have a cup of coffee with Ivanka Trump. But for the bargain price of $1 million, you can spend day one of the Trump administration enjoying a private reception with the new president, followed by a hunting trip with Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump.

A Texas nonprofit led by Trump’s adult sons and two of the campaign’s top fundraisers is throwing an “Opening Day” party on January 21, the day after the inauguration, at D.C.’s Walter E. Washington Convention Center. According to a brochure leaked this weekend by TMZ, those who pay $1 million will be treated to “a private reception and photo opportunity for 16 guests with President Donald J. Trump,” as well as a “multiday hunting and/or fishing excursion for four guests with Donald Trump Jr. and/or Eric Trump, and team.” They’ll even throw in four guitars autographed by an Opening Day performer, possibly Toby Keith and Alabama.

The event will “celebrate the great American tradition of outdoor sporting, shooting, fishing and conservation,” according to the brochure. The dress code is “Cuff Links & Camouflage,” i.e. “jeans, boots, and hats are welcome.” There are other donor packages (the cheapest is “Wild Turkey” for $25,000) and all proceeds “will be donated to conservation charities.”


What, exactly, that means is unclear, as the charities are not named. Walter Kinzie, CEO of the event management company Encore Live, confirmed to media outlets that the newly formed Opening Day Foundation hired his firm to organize the festivities. However, he said some of the details on the leaked brochure are inaccurate. Kinzie said the participation of Trump family members is not confirmed, nor could he name any charities that may benefit from the event."

Unknown said...

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/11/29/20486/donald-trump-offering-huge-perks-inauguration-donors

"All the donor packages include “Priority Booking at Premier Inaugural Hotel(s),” allowing donors the chance to book prime hotel rooms (at their own expense, of course, and with a four-night minimum stay).

Packages are crafted for donors who contribute at least $25,000 to the inaugural committee, a nonprofit set up to raise money for the celebrations that traditionally accompany the swearing in of a new president. The nonprofit is required to disclose its donors but not until after Trump’s inauguration.

Not indicated on the brochure?

Whether one of those “Premier Inaugural Hotel(s)” might be the president-elect’s own newly opened Trump International Hotel, a luxury hotel located five blocks from the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue and along the inaugural parade route.
"

Earnest Prole said...

Alexander: “What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.”

Unknown said...

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/12/19/20564/donald-trumps-sons-behind-nonprofit-selling-access-president-elect

Walter Kinzie, chief executive officer of Texas event management company Encore Live, confirmed to the Center for Public Integrity that a nonprofit group called the Opening Day Foundation hired his firm to manage Opening Day 2017.

A Center for Public Integrity review of Texas incorporation records found the Opening Day Foundation was created less than a week ago, on Dec. 14. Unlike political committees, such nonprofits aren’t required by law to reveal their donors, allowing sponsors to write seven-figure checks for access to the president while staying anonymous, if they choose.

Michael K said...

""All the donor packages include “Priority Booking at Premier Inaugural Hotel(s),” allowing donors the chance to book prime hotel rooms (at their own expense, of course, and with a four-night minimum stay)."

Unknown/Inga is really showing her stuff. She was unconscious when Bill and Hillary were "renting" the Lincoln bedroom.

The stupidity of the left is interesting. I guess I can explain some of it by noting that none of these people has ever signed the front of a paycheck. They know nothing about any sort of business. Many of them think the rich have a treasure house of gold or cash that could be taken away from them.

If you want to see how they do running a country, Venezuela is not far,

khesanh0802 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

What is new and different is that we will NOT know WHO the donors are. Sheesh you people are slow on the uptake.

khesanh0802 said...

@Unknown None of this is new for the Inaugural regardless of party. Different, perhaps, but not new. Personally I think it's disgraceful behavior and they should all just go to work after the swearing in. I can't remember exactly, but I think Obama did a pantomime of the Resurrection of Christ - starring himself as Christ of course - while his flunkies passed the offertory plates.

Unknown said...

Michael K has an excuse, his senile dementia, the rest of you are just slow.

khesanh0802 said...

@unknown Do you know who the donors were for the Obama inaugurals? Link please.

Unknown said...

Obama 2013 Inauguration Donor List

Martin said...

It wasn't Comey, at least not much. The O'Keefe videos of the despicable Creamer and Foval came out about a week earlier and Trump started gaining on Clinton at that time--might have been them, might not, but the timing fits better than saying it was Comey.

Even so, the "shy Trump effect" was large relative to the close margin in many swing states--we know that because the exit polls showed a Clinton win and misled everyone until about 8-9pm on election night when the actual returns were coming in, which means that even after voting they kept their Trump leaning secret from pollsters.

This points to the inherently illogical premises of the Clinton/MSM campaign, which demonized Trump voters to make them hide their true intention, yet depended on polling data to run their campaign. D'oh!

Tactically smart but strategically stupid, and as any serious person knows, good strategy beats bad strategy almost every time, even if the bad strategy is well-executed (which in this case it wasn't, but that's for another time..

Unknown said...

Obama 2009 Inaguration Donor List

khesanh0802 said...

@ Unknown I don't need a link. From Wikipedia " As of January 30, 2009, the presidential committee raised more than $53 million, with at least 458 people giving the committee-imposed maximum of $50,000,[31] including celebrity donors such as George Soros, Halle Berry, Jamie Foxx and George Lucas.[32] Emphasizing a change from business as usual, the committee set stringent guidelines for campaign contributions, barring donations from corporations, political action committees, registered federal lobbyists, labor and trade unions, registered foreign agents and non-U.S. citizens.[31][33] The committee did accept donations from people with active lobbying interests before the federal government, but not registered as federal lobbyists, such as Google executive Eric Schmidt and Microsoft executive Steve Ballmer.[32]"

$53 million. Accepted money from those with "active lobbying interests". I did not have sex with that woman!

Mike said...

I think Comey is a silly explanation.

So do I. His "exoneration" news conference in July helped her far more than any "oh nevermind" revisit of the subject in October hurt her. Far more.

Unknown said...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/12/20/trump-sons-sell-access-to-president-on-inauguration-weekend/

Donald Trump’s team on Tuesday sought to distance his adult children from a nonprofit offering top donors access to the president-elect Inauguration Weekend in exchange for $1 million donations.

An invitation for a Jan. 21 fundraiser, viewed by The Wall Street Journal, listed Donald Jr. and Eric Trump as “honorary co-chairmen” and said the event would be hosted by the Opening Day Foundation, a nonprofit where the younger Trumps were registered as directors, according to the Texas secretary of state, less than a week ago.

The filing with the Texas secretary of state shows the Trumps were registered as directors for the nonprofit on Dec. 14. The registered agent for the group is Gentry Beach, a longtime friend of Donald Jr. whom the president-elect last month appointed to his inaugural committee.

“All net proceeds” from the event will be donated to unnamed “conservation charities,” according to the invitation."

Qwinn said...

The "late swing" in polls was the pollsters needing to unskew their deliberately slanted polls back to reality so as to not lose all credibility. Not that it worked.

Unknown said...

Influence peddling on steroids. Crooked Donald and crooked family. Makes Clinton look like Pollyanna.

Michael K said...

"Makes Clinton look like Pollyanna."

Now that must be a thread winner.

Inga you are a picnic.

Fabi said...

The charge of influence peddling is ludicrous considering how he funded his campaign versus Hillary. Add the Clinton Crime Foundation to the mix and it's laughable -- but thanks for spamming another thread with your off-topic bullshit, UnknownInga.

Unknown said...

Michael K,

Are you still conversing with Inga who lives in your poor senile brain?

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "They did not predict the electoral college outcome, which was freakishly close and almost beyond any reliable prediction."

And yet, somehow, the Trump campaign team identified specific states that would be receptive to Trump outreach, marshalled and rationed out much scarcer resources in an effective and targeted way, understood fully the passion of the voters and the degree of that passion which led to a minimum of actual geo-physical-footprint offices (thus freeing up resources for other purposes), and campaigned effectively in just those key markets at the right time right up to the end in WI, MI, IA, PA, ME-CD2, etc).

This led to an astonishing electoral vote capture Return on Investment that we will likely never see again (see Forbes article on Jared Kushners data operation and how it fed the field operations).

Of course, that was the Trump campaign so it's not surprising that famed "lifelong republican" Chuck might not be willing to concede the obvious even after the fact when the obvious is impossible to deny.

After all, if the dems are not saying something, then generally speaking neither is our resident "lifelong republican".

Drago said...

Unknown: "Influence peddling on steroids."

LOL

No comment necessary.

BTW, how do you think the Russians will actually utilize the Uranium Hillary gave them in return for millions?

Bob Loblaw said...

The Democrats run the most corrupt candidate in American history and then try to wish corruption by the other guy into existence. It's really rather amusing.

BN said...

This election, like all recent elections in our fairly evenly divided society (ideologically speaking), was decided by the "undecideds". You know, those who for whatever reason do not (or cannot) choose between the two mainstream ideologies in America today (i.e., liberal v. conservative), but instead maintain an "open mind".

Myself, I don't understand why people can't decide whether they favor higher or lower taxes, more or less welfare, more or less government control/interference/oversight/"help", etc., and whether these things are generally good or bad for society. But there are a significant number of people for whom those things do not matter and other things matter more, such as "presidential demeanor" or other some such unclear things. And of course, some people care more about specific social or other issues more than economic/defense/subsidiarity/etc. So I guess I do kind of get that, I suppose.

This year is kind of weird also because it followed a few years of the left taking gay, BLM, anti-cop, feminism, anti-white, anti-male, etc., etc., "causes" perhaps too far, probably causing at least some backlash among people who normally don't care that much about that stuff. Might have caused the normal union types to go off the reservation or caused many others to just stay home.

Anyway, that's why I come here: to learn from our good perfesser about this type of thinking, as she is one of the finest examples of wind shifting "moderates" you'll ever find. Mods rule!

[Actually, i do understand a little bit, i think; "moderatism" is favored by those who want to get along through compromise and understanding, and govt protection of the weak, and similar concerns. And there's nothing wrong with that--maybe. Probably beats civil war.]

On the other hand, it could just be Hillary, Jake. I'm sure that didn't help.

Michael K said...

Inga and Unknown may not be the same person but they put out the same idiotic theories and statements.

You could solve this Inga/Unknown by just identifying yourself.

I just think it's fun to make fun of you.

You have to admit you make a huge target.

johns said...

Brando said
"As for NY, IL and CA, I agree that it's not likely those will switch soon (without a major demographic change). Odd to think that in my childhood those were states that regularly went Republican, and now it's unthinkable."

Just as the Roe Effect decreases liberal voters over time (in theory!!), so also the blue model operates in NY, ILL, CA and Mass to siphon off population over time to red states, thereby accomplishing the same result as if one of those blue states were to flip to red.

tcrosse said...

I read that women are going into the woods near Chappaqua to seek out Hillary Clinton. If they find her gingerbread house, they should be warned not to get too close to her oven.

Tim said...

freakishly close-- 304/227. Hillarious gets 104 from Democratic cesspools CA, NY and IL

Unknown said...

Michael K,
I try not to laugh at you, as I have sympathy for those suffering from cognitive impediments. Try not to listen to the "Inga" who lives in your head. He/she will only upset you.

Michael K said...

"for those suffering from cognitive impediments"

Inga claimed to be a nurse. See those nursey terms ?

You are certainly her twin if you aren't her.

mockturtle said...

I think the pollsters are just trying to excuse their sorry projections.

Quaestor said...

I think the pollsters are just trying to excuse their sorry projections.

BINGO. The same methodology that gave Hillary a 99% chance at 7 pm EST last November 8, produced that non-falsifiable claptrap.

AprilApple said...

No one wants to give Trump any credit of course.

I certainly wasn't a big fan, but his last campaign ad was VERY effective.

Quaestor said...

Abie Someone wrote: I try not to laugh at you, as I have sympathy for those suffering from cognitive impediments.

I really, really, really want your brain. I have a wonderful jar set aside — Waterford crystal — no kidding. It'll be like the Trump Tower penthouse for your encephalon.

AprilApple said...

Donald Trump's Argument For America

CWJ said...

Completing Brando's sentence.

"I think the main reason was..." Trump won.

Michael K said...

"I really, really, really want your brain"

"We would like a sample of your brain." "OK."

Ghostbusters 1984.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

That's the most bonkers part: Trump's ground game really was in our hearts!

Mike said...

Alan, that's why we skip over Unknown and just move on. You fed it. That's also why I wish the good Unknown (if there still is one) would adopt an icon or something. Otherwise he risks getting ignored a lot.

Mike said...

OMG they are all feeding it!

Mark said...

The basic answer is that push came to shove.

And people realized that they could not let the Clinton machine, other Dems, progressives and the rest of the left anywhere near the levers of power. Not after eight years of Obama. There would have been nothing left of the country.

And they are proving every day since then that the election turned out the right way.

Achilles said...

I predicted the results of this election almost dead on. The only reason 538 gets headlines is because they are owned by wealthy people who prop them up to push an agenda just like the rest of the media.

Trump won the popular vote among legal voters. Not counting illegal voters he would have won over 40 states. Even with illegal voters he came close to that. I spent almost a year telling people exactly what would happen and it did.

Here is another prediction: After printing and borrowing between 15 and 20 trillion dollars during the obama years and with less than 2% growth there is a massive correction baked into the economy. There is going to be a massive market loss in the next 3 years and a "recession." It will be blamed on Trump, budget cuts, and tax cuts by the "media" and democrats just like they blamed the housing crash they created on Bush.

Brando said...

"You are right. What they said was that the Republicans never again would be a significant factor in the state government, or words to that effect."

They did manage that--what's odd is how CA would regularly go red through 1988, then in '92 it went for Clinton and never was in play since. I get that gradually demographics (increasing Hispanic population, more liberals moving there to fill out cities and more conservatives leaving as the place became overregulated and expensive) would play a part, as they have in other states (there was a time when MA and IL were solid red too) but the abruptness of it is strange. Imagine how presidential elections would go if CA was in play.

"People who were still willing to vote for Hillary by November had already made their peace with the idea of voting for a criminal. I doubt that email revelation had any effect at all."

I think it's not so much that the Comey news changed minds as that it took the Dems off message in a crucial final week and made voters think about Clinton rather than Trump.

"I think if the actions of the next administration and congress accomplish items that have a positive impact for middle America then the wall will be quite fragile for a while, Brando. If the next four years are business as usual then I think it will revert quickly."

I agree. A lot of voters (conservatives as well as apolitical working class voters) have high expectations here. In some ways it's harder when you have a majority, as it's much easier to get people to agree on what they don't want than it is to agree on what they do. But if they navigate that, they'll be in decent position for the 2020 elections.



Bruce Hayden said...

Interesting thing to me was the dynamic between tweaking polls and the Crooked Hillary campaign's blindness to their Rust Belt problem. We found out (thanks to all those leaks) that in addition to overweighting Dem voters in polls (assuming that she would get Obama, or better, turnout), the MSM was also, apparently, intentionally oversampling minorities and urban voters, in order to inflate her lead. And, sure enough, the biggest cities in the country (esp LA, but also NYC, Chicago, etc) gave her her winning popular vote margin, and then some. But that may have contributed to the blind spot that her campaign appeared to have had in regards to working class whites, esp in the parts of her firewall in the Rust Belt. Almost as if they were believing their own hype. The Trump people knew, from their own polling, what was going on, so why didn't the much better funded Clinton campaign?

And, yes, part of the reason that the polls were closing at the end was that some of the pro-Clinton bias was wrung out of them. Which was the source of some, if not much, of her post-convention surge - most noticeably, a big bump in the weighting of Dems in many of the polls then. They wanted a bump then, and got one, despite a lack luster convention, that Trump dominated the first couple days of. And she continued to surge despite not really campaigning through August.

LilyBart said...

I think it was a hard, hard choice for many people. Both candidates were awful, awful, awful. Choosing was hard - and in that environment, a last minute, gut-level decision is likely.

tim in vermont said...

I did. I completed the whole ballot except for POTUS, and still hadn't decided. I think I decided as the pen approached the ballot for the last vote.

Chuck said...


Achilles said...
I predicted the results of this election almost dead on. The only reason 538 gets headlines is because they are owned by wealthy people who prop them up to push an agenda just like the rest of the media.

Trump won the popular vote among legal voters. Not counting illegal voters he would have won over 40 states. Even with illegal voters he came close to that. I spent almost a year telling people exactly what would happen and it did.


Since I am a strong advocate for Republican-led voting reforms, and I don't want my side to get caught up in phony arguments, I am curious about your evidence for millions of illegal votes.

What kinds of illegal votes? Where were they cast?

Please be specific.

My four heroes on the subject of election laws are Hans von Spakovsky, John Fund, Kris Kobach and Prof. Brad Smith. If you can convincingly quote any of them, I shall believe you on the spot.