Skip to main content

It Still Looks Like A Hillary Win To Me

Our friend Mitt Romney demonstrated the phenomenon of leading the national polling, but losing the race, because the state polls never shifted. Ironically, Trump partisans are citing national polls as evidence that Trump is winning, or will win. But the states that are toss-ups according to Real Clear Politics would have to break better than 3 out of 4 to Trump for him to win. Not likely. There is nothing real to indicate that Trump is broadly more liked than Romney was. For a bunch of close states to shift all in one direction, there would have to be a strong indicator that Trump is leading the national race. Not only is he not leading national polling in any discernible sense, he's lost ground. States don't shift first; the nation shifts, and then states realize they don't want to miss the party. Debates rarely change the fundamental tenor of a campaign, but they tend to reinforce earlier trends. He shouldn't have to fight for GA, and NC; these are GOP strongholds. The fact that Clinton may win there is indicative to me of a Democratic win in the manner of at least 2012. I don't see a great groundswell of support for a rebuke of the president, in favor of a nonsense-spewing neophyte. I'll acknowledge my bias here, in that stupidity is the most generous characterization I can give for what Trump says. And I was wrong about Romney winning. But Americans might still vote for someone they aren't overly fond of, if they believe he or she can do the job. Like Bush, '88, or Clinton, 1996. But if you're unlikeable and incompetent, you are doomed. It's over, and thank Heaven, at least until President Clinton starts doing the normal Clinton things.

I might be able to register mild disappointment when it occurs. Sorry, but not.

PA for the GOP is like a girl who flirts mercilessly with you, and then marries that guy you can't stand. Every 4 years. I'm not falling for it. I also believe that if Ohio votes for Trump, it indicates that it's losing its "bellwether" status, in the same way Missouri has. This is more likely than the idea that the solution to GOP presidential woes is to nominate a more crass, less intelligent, less humble version of Rudy Guiliani. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

I won't be shocked if Clinton flirts with 400 electoral votes. The only thing that would shock me is a Trump win.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Underneath, It's All The Same

 As a general rule, I hate "pox on both your houses" takes on politics. Most of the time, I'm inclined to think that a particular person chooses this take because someone else has made them uncomfortable with a certain aspect of their own philosophy. If they adopt a posture of cynicism, maybe they can escape the moral force of that criticism. That could be bulverism in any one case, but I have seen it before, and I can't paint a picture without generalizing. Anyway, I didn't come here to talk about that. I came here to say that both major parties in the United States--and the people themselves--have embraced the absolute individualism at the heart of classical liberalism. Rightists want freedom from constraint in economics, environment, religious liberty, and a few other things. Leftists don't believe in this absolute individualism with respect to economics or the environment (not to mention religious liberty), but they do embrace it with respect to human sexu

You're Not Going To Die If The Democrats Win The Elections

I guess I'll tell you my gripes with Crisis magazine: the whole thing sounds like a Rod Dreher fever dream. You would think that armies of drag queens were kidnapping children to take them to the infamous Story Hour, in some kind of right-wing dystopian novel that is the reverse of The Handmaid's Tale. Come on, man. In other news, I would like to congratulate the Democrats, on seemingly finding some semblance of an economic message. You know, I'm old enough to remember when they actually were the party of the working class; it seemed like there for a while, they were the party of debt-ridden upper-class English majors, complaining because their slice of the pie lacks cherry sauce. [Wait, aren't they still those people?--ed.] Too soon. Anyway, I am what they used to call a "social conservative". And to be clear, I am not a social conservative for the sake of winning an election; I really believe and try to do the things that I say in this regard. Someone, howev

Final Election Analysis

 We might even say we're mere hours away from beginning to know who will assume the office of president on January 20 of next year. I'll cut right to the chase: I think this is going to be a really big win for Joe Biden. Real Clear Politics has shown a very heavy right bias, in the including of sketchy online polls, and in delaying the release of live voter polls more favorable to Joe Biden. Even so, their national polling average shows the lead for Biden at 7.8%. Keep in mind that if that were to hold, it would be a bigger percentage margin than Barack Obama achieved in 2008. The state polls are tight nearly everywhere, but they show clear leads for Joe Biden. The upper Midwest probably will not make any presidential calls on the night of the election, but Biden's lead in states that Trump should absolutely easily hold in a reelection campaign indicates to me that the president is in real trouble. He achieved a popular vote percentage in 2016 of 46%. He's going to be n