Popular Vote versus Electoral College (Part II)

Fourthly, Clinton only won 20 states and the District of Columbia. That means Trump won 30 states! Clinton received nearly 40% of her vote from a mere seven states: California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have huge urban areas and compose about 30% of the nation’s population. Clinton defeated Trump by nearly 10 million votes in these states (4.3 million in California alone)! Compare this to Trump’s seven largest margin of victories in states: Texas, Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Missouri. Trump won these states by 4.2 million votes but they make up less than 18% of the nation’s population and accounted for about 21% of Trump’s total vote. These states may have some urban areas, but they also have big rural populations. The bottom line is conservatives will never win highly populous states by the same margin as liberals because liberals dominate urban areas. So, should seven urban states speak for the entire country? Should our country be led by pro urban policies at the expense of rural people?

The Electoral College makes smaller states and rural areas matter. If the Electoral College was eliminated, it would initially help to expand voter turnout. Especially in states where turnout is low because they lean so far Left or Right. For instance, Republicans in California and New York or Democrats in Utah and Wyoming would more likely turn out to vote since their vote may matter more. For instance, this year Democrats had great turnouts in Texas (Turnout increased 2.6%), Utah (2.3%), Arizona (3.6%), and Georgia (1%) because pollsters and the media said these states were in play (and they were wrong). This helped boost Clinton’s popular vote by nearly 500,000 votes. On the other hand, pollsters and the media can suppress votes. Trump may have gotten a small boost in Michigan (1.9%) and Pennsylvania (2.3%) since most pundits said these states were safe for Clinton. However, no one said Wisconsin (-3.5%), Minnesota (-1.3%), or Maine (3.7%, went up since Trump campaigned there because it is not a winner take all state – much higher turnout in district 2) was in play but they were much closer than Texas, Utah, Arizona, and Georgia. If the media and pundits can control the turnout in states, they can certainly more easily control turnout across the country with national polls.

The bottom line, in the long run, urban areas would win out and more than likely disenfranchise rural voters similar to how the Supreme Court ruling “One person, one vote” has disenfranchised rural voters within the individual states. Over 80% of the United States land mass is rural and hence lean Republican. In a strictly popular vote election this makes it much more difficult for Republicans to get their voters to polling places because they have so much more land area to cover. A switch to prioritize the seven most urban and liberal states to decide elections would be a mistake. No one would campaign for small battleground states such as New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, or Nevada anymore.

Popular Vote versus Electoral College (Part I)

The election is over and Liberals are not happy because Clinton received the most votes and lost. Now, they want to eliminate the Electoral College (Clinton won by 2.6 million votes, about 2%, but Trump won the Electoral College 306 to 232). Is this something that should be considered? No, and here are some reasons why:

First, Clinton did not win 50% of the popular vote. She won 48.1% to Trump’s 46.1%. Clinton was really about 2.5 million votes away from earning a plurality of the popular vote. Third Party candidates earned about 5.8% of the vote (the most since Ross Perot ran in 1992 and 1996). If a candidate cannot win at least 50% of the popular vote then they do not have a claim to the popular vote title since most people voted against them. What’s worse, there was a huge “under vote” (people who vote but opt not to vote for the Presidential race) nationally of about 2.5%. Generally, Presidential elections have an under vote of less than 0.5%. But since both Trump and Clinton were so unpopular, the under vote was much higher. Therefore, Clinton’s percentage of the electorate was under well 47% if the under vote was considered. The Clinton campaign was so inept, they spent millions in Chicago, New Orleans, and large California cities with the goal to run up the popular vote. The Clinton campaign was convinced they were going to win the electoral college so they spent more money trying to garner extra votes in states where the outcome was going to be a landslide. The Clinton camp made a huge error by spending no money in Wisconsin and very little in Michigan. Hence, the objective of the Clinton camp was to win the popular vote. Meanwhile, winning the popular vote was not the objective of the Trump camp, they spent their money wisely in battleground states with the objective of winning the electoral college. The bottom line, if winning the popular vote was the goal, then Trump would have implemented a much different campaign strategy.

Secondly, the 2016 election scenario has played out several times in U.S. history. In Presidential elections with a popular vote (the first nine presidential elections did not have a popular vote), the candidate with the most votes lost the election 5 times (14% of the time). In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular vote and electoral vote. However, there were four candidates and no one received a plurality of the electoral vote. Hence, the election went to the House of Representatives and they choose John Quincy Adams over Jackson. In 1876, Rutherford Hayes won the Electoral College by 1 vote and lost the election by about 250,000 votes to Samuel Tilden. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison won the Electoral College by a convincing 65 votes, but lost the popular vote by 90,000 votes to Grover Cleveland. In 2000, George Bush won the Electoral College by 5 votes but lost the election by 550,000 votes. In 1800, there was not a popular vote, but both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were tied in the Electoral College. Jefferson won the election after it was decided in the House of Representatives. Our democracy has survived nearly 250 years following the procedure put forth in the Constitution without any serious issues.

Thirdly, the lamest argument by liberals is that Third Party Candidates cost Clinton a plurality in the Electoral College. They claim Clinton would have won in Wisconsin (0.8%), Michigan (0.2%), and Pennsylvania (0.7%) if there were not any third party candidates. In an analysis of Third Party candidates (I did this) – it is estimated that Trump would have received about 4 million votes (52%) to Clinton’s 3.7 million votes (48%) if voters were forced to choose between Trump or Clinton. Maybe Clinton could have won Michigan (probably not) but that would not have been enough for her win the Electoral College. It is unlikely the results would have changed in any state even if Third Party candidates were not in the election. Why? Because the under vote for President was significantly high in 2016 – over 3% in some states. In Nevada, 2.5% of the people voted “None of the Above” in a state Clinton won by 2.4% (less than 0.5% voted “None of the Above” in 2012). Nearly 4% of Californians did not vote for President. Hence, it is quite conceivable that the under vote would have been significantly higher if there were no Third Party options (both candidates were highly unpopular). Besides, Republicans could have made the same claim for Minnesota (that a Third Party candidate cost them the state) where Evan McMullin received 1.8% of the vote (Clinton won Minnesota by 1.4%). McMullin was only on the ballots in 11 states but still finished 5th overall. McMullin voters were highly conservative just as most Jill Stein voters were highly liberal.

Is there a God? (Part IV)

One bizarre concept, the Multiple Universe theory, tries to explain how our observation changes what is happening in reality. Since on a subatomic level our existence is not definitive, but one based on probability then in one universe I am writing this blog, in another universe I may sleeping, and even in other universes I may not be born yet. How can something like this happen without a higher being involved? This theory almost resembles Dr. Seuss’s “Horton Hears a Who” except Horton can exist in both worlds at different points in his life. In fact, there are an infinite number of universes that Horton may exist. There are as many universes necessary to cover all possible probabilities (potential outcomes) of Schrödinger’s equation.

The Bible, in fact, gives us clues that quantum mechanics was part of God’s plan to create the universe. God said “Let there be light” as the first step in creating the universe. Quantum mechanics has taught us that light is the energy that binds and holds matter together so it makes sense that the first thing God created was light. In Hebrews 11:3 it says "By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God’s command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen." This is so true, everything we can see is made up of things we cannot see. In Peter 3:8 it states "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." This sounds like the theory of relatively. Everything is summed up fairly well in Corinthians 4:18 when it says "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." These are just a few examples of many that show how the Bible supports quantum theories.

None of this is proof that a God exists, but it is an awful lot of circumstantial evidence. If this case was tried in a court of law it is becoming more and more apparent that there is enough evidence to say a God exists: The creation of the universe and Earth that followed a perfect chronological order of unlikely events to support life, precisely measured universal constants, quantum theory’s bizarre probability state, and the biblical support of these theories.

Is there a God? (Part III)

How can atomic and subatomic physics yield such different results in reality and yet co-exist? Well, many physicists do not believe they do – that we actually live in a world ruled by subatomic physics and not what we actually believe is reality. Therefore, what we are seeing, hearing, and sensing is not actually our reality. Essentially what physicists are saying is: it possible that our brains and or our minds are tricking our subconscious into seeing and hearing what we believe is reality. This may explain why people with near death experiences continue to see and hear things even though their brain is dead, their subconscious is still alive.

Everything in our reality is based solely on our perception or point of view. I may see a yellow wall or full moon, but a color blind person living half way around the globe would see neither. So does a yellow wall or the moon exist? This is similar to the famous riddle: If a tree falls in the forest does it make a noise if no one is there to hear it? In our reality world the answer would be yes, but in the world of quantum mechanics the answer is both yes and no (there is no definitive answer). It begs to question, if we can trick our subconscious into believing that we live in a definitive world (and not one of probability), then it is that farfetched to believe a higher being may be able to manipulate the universe in a similar fashion? It is almost as if we are all puppets living in a make believe world where God is pulling all the strings: We are putting on play or show for God. Of course none of this answers the biggest riddle in my viewpoint: Why do bad things happen to good people? If God is controlling all of us, then why does he put good people through so much hurt and pain? The Bible explains why Jesus went through unbelievable torture and death, but it does not explain why others must also endure pain and suffering.

In previous posts, I have theorized that our society is balanced and stabilized based on the Gaussian probability density curve (Bell Curve). For instance, there are a large number of good people in the center of the Bell Curve and a smaller number of evil and saint like beings at each end of the Bell Curve respectively. For every good act there is a bad act that balances it. For society to exist it must be stabilized by both good and evil (ying and yang) and healthy and unhealthy. This type of probability based society fits under the realm of the subatomic laws. The Bible pits good (God) versus evil (Devil) and talks about plagues and diseases purposely brought onto groups of people. So this theory follows both biblical and subatomic theories. All possible outcomes in a subatomic universe can neither be all good or all evil. God’s plan calls for adversity and challenges in life so people can learn and evolve (analogous to how all living organisms physically grow and get stronger). It is my belief this is true because the goal of life is grow and become a better person. If people were all good and nothing bad happened to them - life would not evolve and in fact be very boring. If bad things only happened to bad people then no one would care and life would also fail to evolve under this scenario. Of course, all living things must die – so birth and death of living things are what we have in common. But if Schrödinger’s equation is right, our subconscious will live before birth and after death. This may explain those weird Deja vu experiences we encounter and for some, those near death experiences. Maybe before birth and after death experiences is where good and evil are separated. For example, the Bible preaches evil goes to hell and good goes to heaven.

Is there a God? (Part II)

It is also interesting to look at six universal constants: the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity, the fusion of hydrogen to helium to determine the strong nuclear force, the density parameter, the cosmological constant, the gravitational energy constant, and the number of spatial dimensions. If for some reason any one of these number constant values changed in the slightest, not only would life cease to exist, the universe would not exist. What are the odds of this happening? I do not know, but it is very small, and once again, likely pointing to the existence of a higher being creating the perfect environment for life to exist. Still, others may see this as just another unlikely coincidence.

Today, with all of our modern equipment we still cannot explain hundreds of mysteries from past civilizations: Stonehenge, Machu Picchu, the Rama Empire, the Longyou Caves, the city Nan Madol, the city Tinwanaku, Baalbek (Roman Empire), the Egyptian Empire, and Gobleki Tepe to name a few of hundreds. These civilizations were advanced for their time yet we have no clue how they built their amazing structures with such precision. How did they move and carve out those massive sized rocks? Where did they learn the techniques for such advanced building expertise? How did they learn how to plan out and design cities ahead of time? We do not know, because tools and documentation to explain these answers are missing. In fact, many of the people who populated these civilizations disappeared without a trace. All signs point to some outside assistance. Some claim the help came in the form of aliens. If that is true, then God placed the aliens here. Either way, aliens or not, all signs point to a higher level being (God) helping these people. All this being said, none of the above information is actual proof to support the existence of a God. However, modern quantum physics or quantum mechanics may support scientific evidence of the existence of God. Quantum physics is the study of subatomic particles that make up the protons, neutrons, and electrons of an atom. What makes quantum physics so difficult to grasp is that the laws of physics as we know them in our reality, do not apply at the subatomic level. We see things as definitive in our reality of life, but in quantum mechanics everything is based on probability. We see time and space in our reality as linear and constant, but in quantum mechanics time and space are relative (theory of relativity). In our reality, matter can exist in multiple states – solid, gas, liquid. However, these elements or molecules states are definitive – they only exist in one state at a time. For instance, water cannot be in both liquid and solid forms at the same time. In quantum mechanics particles can act as waves and vice versa and it is impossible to distinguish between the two. The discovery that light acted in this duality mode (a wave and particle) shed light on this phenomenon. It is believed that particles or waves at the subatomic level can also violate the traditional laws of physics. For example sub atomic particles or waves may travel faster than the speed of light.

Let’s examine the difference between definitive and probability states. If, for example, the weather for tomorrow calls for a 50% chance of rain – we will definitively determine that to be either 0% or 100% after tomorrow ends (it either rained or it did not). In quantum physics the chance of rain remains at 50%, there is never a definitive 0% or 100% state. One way to view this phenomenon is to envision a piece of string. If we try to go from one end of the string to the other by exactly halving the distance each step, we would never actually get to the end of string, but we would get very, very close. Schrödinger’s equation works in a similar fashion when trying to compute probabilities in quantum mechanics – it never yields a definitive state of 0% or 100% probabilities. Hence, nothing in the quantum world is definitive – it is all probability based – so we can say that it both rained and it did not rain. If you are interested reading more about this phenomenon you can read about Schrödinger’s Cat.

Is there a God? (Part I)

Is there a God? For many people this is an easy answer of yes or no. With a background in math and science I have been agnostic most of life trying to find proof of a God (good luck with that happening, right?). Math and science, for most the part, have been at odds with the existence of God. After all, there were scientific explanations for everything to dismiss the existence of God: How the universe was created; how life formed and evolved; and the entire history and formation of our planet, Earth. But still, one could argue that all of the scientific explanations (if true) could all have been part of God’s plan. Hence, in my view, the revelation of evolution does not exclude the existence of a God.

Over the years I struggled with the topic of God and religion. Finally, I determined that my issues were not necessarily with God and faith, but with religion. I thought if God existed, God would not take kindly to the hundreds of different types of religions – especially when most wars are fought over their varying beliefs. Flawed religions kept me from trying to find answers of the existence of God for decades. Once I was able to set aside religion from the equation, I was able to move forward and give this question more thought.

Gazing into the sky and seeing the light from stars generated hundreds of years prior is truly amazing. How can something as astounding as our universe, with seemingly no beginning or ending, could have been created without the help of a higher being? It is hard to imagine. For life to form on Earth many things had to happen in a perfect chronological sequence for it to occur successfully. For instance, if the moon was smaller or larger or in a different orbit it could have made the formation of life much more difficult if not impossible. The Earth’s tides and even its axis of rotation would have been altered yielding vastly different weather and climate. The Earth orbits at the optimum distance from the sun to create the perfect temperature range to support life. The Earth’s atmosphere, and in particular the ozone layer, is perfectly designed to protect us from the harmful rays from the sun. Of course the Earth’s atmosphere is also composed of the perfect combination of oxygen and other elements to support life. The Earth’s magnetic field is perfectly designed to protect us from cosmic radiation. And the formation of water on Earth was essential for life (introduced through asteroid strikes). We can go on and on, but you get the picture. So what is the probability of all these things occurring exactly in the right chronological sequence to make Earth the perfect place for life? I do not know, but it is probably pretty slim to none. Some can see this as an intervention by God, others can say that there are billions of planets in the universe and that all these perfect things happening to one planet is not that farfetched in terms of probability.

College Football Selection Committee Decisions Make Little Sense

An NCAA committee selects four college football teams to play for the national championship once the regular season and conference championship games are complete. This year they selected Alabama (13-0, Southeast Conference Champs – 1 seed), Clemson (12-1, Atlantic Coast Conference Champs – 2nd seed), Ohio State (11-1, Big 10 Conference 2nd place in East Division, 3rd seed), and Washington (12-1, Pacific Athletic Conference Champs – 4th seed). The committee also considered Penn State (11-2, Big 10 Conference Champs) and Michigan (10-2, Big 10 Conference 3rd place in the East Division).

No one can argue with the selection of Alabama or Clemson. Both played tough schedules and won their conference championships. And it is probably acceptable that the committee left Michigan out of the tournament. Although I think they have a better argument to be in the tournament than Washington.

Does Ohio State deserve to be in the field ahead of Penn State? Penn State beat Ohio State, they had the best record in the nation’s toughest conference (The Big 10), and they won the conference championship outright. Penn State was also the second hottest team in the country winning 9 straight games (only Alabama has done better). The problem with Penn State is that they have 2 loses. They lost a game at Pittsburgh (8-4, 42-39 final) and they got crushed at Michigan in the conference opener (49-10 final). But Penn State was hot and beat two top 10 teams and was crushing weaker opponents to finish the season.

Does Washington deserve to be in the field ahead of Penn State? The problem with Washington is that they played the 108th weakest schedule in the country (out of 128 Division 1 teams). That is pitiful, but the committee argues that Penn State had a bad loss at Pittsburgh. However, what the committee fails to mention is that Pittsburgh also gave Clemson its only loss (and it was at Clemson) and they are ranked in the top 25. Pittsburgh was obviously a dangerous team to play. What if Washington had to play 3 top 10 teams and a couple more top 25 teams? Washington lost its only game against a top 10 team (USC) and only has one other victory against a top 25 team (Colorado). Penn State played 6 games against top 25 teams (4-2), and 3 of those games were against top 10 teams (2-1). What if Washington had to play another 2 games against top 10 teams and 4 against top 25 teams (instead of patsies), would they still have one loss? Probably not. It is hard to get for and to play tough games week in and week out. This tests the mental state of a team which has not been challenged in Washington’s schedule. Washington was 1-1 against top 25 teams (0-1 against the top 10). Michigan was much more qualified then Washington also going 4-2 against top 25 teams and 2-1 against top 10 teams. And let’s not forget that the committee seeded Ohio State ahead of Washington even though they did not win the Big 10 Conference and have a worse record (1 less win).

Washington and Ohio State are very good teams. But why should Ohio State benefit from playing one less game because they did not even make the Big 10 Championship game (what if they played in the championship game and lost, they would not be in the tournament)? And why would Washington benefit from playing a weak schedule? The selection committee has always selected Conference Champions and said they consider head to head games as a tie breaker – but Ohio State makes the championship field. One reason a team like Western Michigan (13-0, Champions on the Mid-American Conference) were not considered for the championship field is because they play a weak schedule. Western Michigan’s schedule was much weaker than Washington’s but the difference in the strength of schedule between Penn State and Washington was about the same as Washington and Western Michigan (considering FBS teams as well). Using the committee’s logic of prioritizing loses over strength of schedule, then Western Michigan should have been selected over Washington since they have 1 less loss (just like Washington has one less loss than Penn State). If you do not include strength of schedule then teams will schedule patsies in non-conference games.

The goal of the committee is to get the best 4 teams in the championship tournament and maybe they did. But it is hard to think that Washington is better than both Penn State and Michigan who played a much superior schedule. It is even harder to consider how Ohio State gets in the championship tournament without Penn State also in the tournament. Why reward teams that do not win their conference and that lost to the team that won the conference? A few years back the committee rewarded Ohio State over other teams because they won the Big 10 Championship even though the conference was weak that year. I suppose the committee likes to keep the status quo and benefit teams that have a solid history like Ohio State.

Roosevelt and Taft: The Fathers of Modern Day Liberalism (Part II)

Domestically, Taft was very much built in the progressive Roosevelt image. For that reason, Roosevelt pushed for Taft to succeed him in 1908 which was done successfully. Taft’s four years as president may have been more productive than Roosevelt’s 7.5 years (Roosevelt was vice president when McKinley was assassinated. Interestingly, Republicans placed Roosevelt in the vice president (VP) position to keep him out of the way since the VP has limited power. Ironically, Taft would have more than likely been the 1904 Republican candidate had McKinley not been assassinated). Taft used the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to break up dozens of monopolies; passed an income tax amendment to the constitution; granted two more territories statehood; passed new corporate taxes; and was the first to push for the passage of free trade laws (protectionism tariffs had been the central government philosophy up to that point). In response to a major recession under the Roosevelt presidency (many blamed it on his anti-corporation laws) Taft created what would eventually turn into the Federal Reserve (under Woodrow Wilson) and he created the postal savings system where people can save their money in a government bank instead of private banks that failed at a high rate during the Roosevelt recession.

Roosevelt was not particularly happy with Taft once he became president. Roosevelt was not happy that Taft removed all his cabinet members and he was not happy that he undid many of his regulations especially western land grabs. Taft thought that Roosevelt violated the Constitution by circumventing congress to make many western lands public property. Even though Taft successfully got Congress to legally approve the land grabs, Roosevelt was beside himself. The rift was so bad that Roosevelt decided to be the first president to seek a third term. The Republican primary between Roosevelt and Taft was heated. It was the first time a presidential election held primaries where the people of each state decided the delegates and the outcome (similar to our present day system – 13 states used the primary system and the rest used the conventional manner at that time to decide elections at the convention). Hence, it became the first election where candidates went to states to campaign for votes in the primary season. Roosevelt’s rhetoric was just as harsh as anything we may witness today. Taft would not stoop to Roosevelt’s level other than to defend himself over the many falsehoods that Roosevelt claimed. Roosevelt won most of the primaries but Taft won the nomination at the Convention winning most states who did not have a primary. Roosevelt was upset and felt the Republican nomination was robbed from him. Roosevelt decided to run in 1912 as a third party candidate – the progressive Bull Moose Party. The unfortunate outcome of this skirmish is that it allowed Woodrow Wilson win the presidency. Taft would have won the presidency if it were not for Roosevelt’s massive super ego.

Wilson continued the progressive movement started by Roosevelt and Taft. Wilson lowered the protection tariffs, instituted a progressive Federal Income Tax, passed Child Labor Laws, and passed the Federal Reserve Act. Wilson tried to create a League of Nations (our United Nations today) but failed after WWI. This action was not much different than a treaty created by Taft with many nations to decide issues through arbitration to avoid wars (This agitated the war thirsty Roosevelt). In fact, everything Wilson did was merely an enhancement of Roosevelt and Taft policies. Wilson was Taft and Roosevelt on steroids. Hence, the start of the progressive era with each liberal president trying to outdo their predecessor (not with new ideas, but by making old ideas more restrictive).

Taft and Roosevelt were the fathers of Democratic progressive policies. To Taft and Roosevelt’s credit, back in their day, there was a need for child labor laws, working condition laws, and so forth. Today, the need for unions and further regulations are not needed nearly to the extent as they were needed in the beginning of the twentieth century. However, that has not stopped Democrats and liberals from being more intrusive by creating more laws, taxes, and regulations to beat down corporations. But all the ideas of progressive policies originated from Republicans – everything from an inheritance tax to radical ideas such as repealing judicial decisions came from these two Republicans. They even championed ideas that are a part of American tradition today: women’s suffrage, election of Senators (originally Senators were appointed by state legislators), election primaries, and free trade.

Anderson Cooper Attacks Trump by Flattering Himself

Anderson Cooper should stop flattering himself. His highlight on his show last evening was how Trump tweeted him (at 2am) over his liberally lopsided views on his program the day before. Trump should not even have the time to do this Cooper said. This was the top story and there was no mention about how Trump is making a deal for 1000 manufacturing workers to keep their jobs in Indiana instead of having them move to Mexico. It was another Trump assault by Cooper masterful pulled off by flattering himself. Now that is an egomaniac.

I wonder where the Clinton News Network (CNN) has been the past eight years? They did not seem to care that Obama spent most of his time on the job campaigning to raise money for the DNC, playing basketball or golf, sitting in on talk show TV programs yucking it up with other liberals, playing NCAA Men’s Basketball brackets on ESPN, vacationing, or sleeping. And when Obama was not doing these things he was complaining about Fox News. Where was the outrage when Obama sat on a plane going to Vegas for fund raiser as we were under attack in Benghazi, Libya? Where is the outrage and concern over Obama blaming the election loses on Fox News yesterday? News flash to Cooper, this is how Trump finds the time: Trump works 20 hours a day, he does not sleep much, he does not vacation, and he does not even take a pay check. And on top of that he did Obama’s job yesterday of saving those manufacturing jobs in Indiana making him the most successful presidential elect in our history – already doing the job of President.

I know Trump will not get a fair shake, but this is ridiculous. The media is making itself look more and more incompetent. Cooper lost all respect with me earlier this year when he questioned how Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, could care about the loss of life at the Orlando night club shooting when she did not back gay marriage. Really? Because you do not support gay marriage you want gay people to die! These are conclusions that our liberal media make. I do not understand how Cooper still has a job after making those statements.

Liberal and Media Bias, Hypocrisy, Outrage and Bad Precedent (Part II)

Yet, the media is defending the effort of Jill Stein, and now backed by the Clinton campaign, to raise money for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Trump won Wisconsin by 1% or about 28,000 votes; Trump won Michigan by 0.3% or about 11,000 votes; and Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.3% or about 70,000 votes. Most states do an automatic recount if the election is decided by less than 0.25% which none of these states qualify. Hence, Jill Stein has started to raise money for a recount and thus far a recount has been granted in Wisconsin. What is odd is why is Stein leading this charge? She earned more votes as the Green Party candidate in all three of the states in question to put Clinton in the White House. Remember, Green Party votes are 90% more likely to take a vote from the Democratic candidate than the Republican candidate (Libertarian candidates usually take more votes from the Republican candidate). Liberals claim that Trump outperformed Romney numbers, especially in rural areas, by huge margins (10 to 20%) and that seems unlikely. In fact, Trump won 38 more counties in those three states than Romney won (Republicans win most counties in general elections, so winning that many more is an amazing feat). But there are several reasons as to why this recount will not change anything. First, there is no evidence of any cyber security hack. Secondly, the urban and rural voting patterns in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were similar to what happened in other states such as Ohio, Iowa, and Minnesota (strong correlation in voting patterns) and even to a lesser degree – Florida and New Hampshire (moderate correlation in voting patterns). And there is even some weak correlation in other states that Clinton won: Colorado and Nevada. Thirdly, some may argue that results may have been “rigged” in those other states as well. However, each state has a different method of voting and in some cases voting methods are mixed. For instance, Iowa and Minnesota elections are not electronic – they are entirely paper ballots. Hence, there is no way to “hack” these elections through cyber security breaches. Also, rural counties in Wisconsin use paper ballots. The bottom line is there is a paper trail that supports the election results: a trend of Trump outperforming Romney big league. Fourth, Trump can lose any one of these states and still win the election. In fact, he can lose both Wisconsin and Michigan and still win the election. And his lead in Pennsylvania is the largest and most secure of the three states. Fifth, these are huge leads in all three states. Finding tens of thousands of votes just does not happen. Fifth, Trump under performed the results of Republicans in U.S. Senate races in the rust-belt states. Finally, what most people fail to realize is that Obama outperformed Gore and Kerry by large margins in rural rust belt counties and the trend just reversed itself?

But where is the criticism of the left in the media for dragging out this election and failing to conform to our democratic ways? Stein is obviously doing a favor for the Clinton campaign why else would she select three states that Trump barely won. Why not contest states Clinton barely won - Minnesota (1.4%) or New Hampshire (0.3%)? It is because Stein is working in cahoots with the Clinton campaign. This behavior sets a bad precedent for our democracy as do the violent protests.

I am not condoning any type of biased media coverage. But my biggest beef is that they fail to be consistent on issues. They cover Trump different than they do Clinton over the same issues i.e. “rigged elections” and failing to trust our election system. The media failed to cover Obama in same light over similar issues especially over national security as Bush: war (Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq), drone strikes, NSA metadata, and civil liberty violations (killing of American terrorists without due process). Did the media cover Benghazi, fast and furious, IRS and DOJ targeting, the Clinton email server, or the VA cover up with the same veracity that they covered the outing of Valarie Plame or the firing of federal judges? Is the appointment of Bannon being reported equally as Obama controversial Czar Appointments? Has controversial Obama associations been covered as much as the Alt-Right and KKK supporting Trump (even though he has disavowed them dozens of times)? Has Clinton ever disavowed radical groups such as Black Lives Matter? The public is tired of this blatant bias as they are tired of narcissistic college youths coddled by liberal parents and professors. Liberal youths that want to stifle free speech by hiding in safe spaces on college campuses free of opposing points of view.

Everything that the media or liberals accuse Trump and his supporters of, they in turn do the same thing: Protesting elections and having no faith in our democratic system, discrimination, hateful words and acts, and so forth. As long as the media and liberals behave with hypocrisy, bias, bad precedent, and outrage the Trump movement will gain traction. It is so blatant that no one wants to give the guy a fair shot before he even gets into office. I debated my vote for Trump. It was difficult. However, the more the media covered the election in an unfair matter, the more I saw my vote for Trump as a vote against the media.

Liberal and Media Outrage, Bias, Hypocrisy, and Bad Precedent (Part I)

Trump is still nearly two months away from the Presidency, but it is almost comical how he cannot do anything right in the eyes of media since winning the election. First, his transition team was accused of being in chaos and being behind schedule for appointing members to his cabinet. Of course, the media gave him little chance to win the election and he had to use resources on his campaign instead of on the transition since he was outspent 3 to 1. Still, the media would not cut Trump any slack for one instance. After he appointed several cabinet posts Trump was then accused of appointing white supremacists and racists. My Lord, Trump’s first five cabinet selections only consisted of old white men and had no diversity. The next day Trump appointed two women including an Indian-American. The story then changed to Trump only going to two national security briefings (this is serious, but Pence has gone to them all and let’s not forget Obama’s abysmal record of attending these meetings). Unfortunately, this is how it is going to be for the next four years.

Not one media outlet covered the fact that Trump was not going to take a vacation or paycheck (other than the 60 Minutes interview). No one covered the fact Trump backed off his claim of prosecuting Clinton. No one covered Trump’s rule of having anyone serving in his administration to stay out of the lobbying business for 5 years (a failed Obama campaign promise). No one covered how Trump has put aside campaign differences for the better of the country by appointing Nicki Hailey as UN ambassador or by considering Mitt Romney to a cabinet post. No one covered how Trump was considering Democrats for his administration or how he wants to pass an infrastructure bill (similar to Obama). In fact, Trump is acting much like a liberal or Democrat in many regards especially on trade and the economy.

While Trump can do no right, the media has said nothing about the violent protestors against the Trump victory: records indicate that most of those who were arrested did not even vote. The media failed to condone the treatment of Mike Pence at a “Hamilton” play even though cast members including Javier Munoz, who plays Hamilton, did not vote. What precedent does it set to look the other way when Americans overstep the reigns of democracy? The media seems to have favorable views of Californian’s wanting to succeed from the union (Clinton won California by an amazing 3.5 to 4 million votes). First of all, succession is illegal (Texas v. White). Secondly, every time a conservative state threatened to succeed in the past they were critically chastised by the media. The media criticized Trump for his answer in the final debate about wanting to “wait and see” about whether or not he would concede after the election if he lost. Every newspaper in the country made this the most important issue that came out of the last debate. They claimed Trump is against our democratic process especially since he continually claims the process and system is rigged. There is no question that Trump saw what the DNC machine did to Bernie Sanders and he did not completely trust the system. Who could blame him other than the media?

Roosevelt and Taft: The Fathers of Modern Day Liberalism (Part I)

Democrats continually make the claim time and time again that the Republican Party is the “Do Nothing” Party. They argue conservatives have no real ideas or concepts. In fact, a look at history would explain that Democrats are the Party of no ideas or concepts. Lincoln emancipated African-Americans and it took a plurality of Republicans to pass the civil rights under LBJ. It took a plurality of Republicans to pass women’s suffrage. Even Reagan provided amnesty to illegal immigrant Hispanics. And Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean up the environment. Today, Democrats use African-Americans and women as pawns in their crusade to conquer and divide Americans. And they use the EPA as a means to regulate companies in their pursuit to combat what they call “manmade” climate change. Democrats use Republican ideas and concepts on steroids.

In fact, a look back at history shows the first real progressives in the White House were Teddy Roosevelt and William Taft and they were Republicans. Taft and Roosevelt were two very different people both physically and in persona. Roosevelt was fit and Taft struggled with his weight at times ballooning over 325 pounds. Roosevelt was a talker while Taft was a listener. Roosevelt was brash while Taft was congenial. Roosevelt had a massive super ego while Taft was laid back and did not let any personal agenda take over his motives. Roosevelt was a warmonger while Taft was a peaceful man. Roosevelt governed by trying to find ways to circumvent the law, Taft was a lawyer and judge by trade and hence he always tried to do things by the book (legally). Despite these differences, both Taft and Roosevelt where the best of friends and when it came to domestic and foreign policy they saw things pretty much eye to eye.

Roosevelt got his claim to fame by being New York City police chief and mayor as well as assistant secretary of the navy. He is most famous for being the leader of the Rough Riders during the Spanish American War winning the battle at San Juan Hill. However, it was his preparedness of the Navy that helped the U.S. win decisive battles at Manila and Santiago to win the war. Taft was a lawyer who became an Ohio state judge at an early age. He was President Benjamin Harrison’s solicitor general before being nominated by President McKinley to be the first governor of the Philippines after Spain succeeded that territory to the U.S. after the war.

Roosevelt was a brash individual more concerned with popular public opinion. He was the first president to use the press to his advantage. Once Roosevelt confirmed investigative reports were factual – he acted. Most thought he was a leader, but he was actually a follower. He followed public opinion to be popular. He acted by using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to break up unpopular monopolies in the railroad industry. He acted through Congress and through executive order to conserve more western lands than any other president in history – combined. Roosevelt supported unions and their quest for better working conditions, child labor laws, and an eight hour workday. Reports of terrible conditions in the meatpacking industry also forced Congress to pass the Food and Drug Act making it imperative for products to list its ingredients. Roosevelt was the first president to pass regulations to keep corporations in check. Without a doubt, Roosevelt increased the power of the executive branch and the media to push his agenda through public opinion. Roosevelt even pushed for renewable energy – hydro power and the irrigation of desert lands. The Roosevelt administration was a like our present day Obama administration. They both pushed regulations on corporations, both pushed for renewable energies and policies to protect our environment, and they both expanded the role of the presidency mostly through executive actions.

A few of Roosevelt’s biggest accomplishments were not his gaudy domestic policies, but in foreign affairs. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing about the peace treaty between Russia and Japan ending the Russo-Japanese War (Obama also won the Nobel Peace Prize, but he did nothing to earn it). He started work on the Panama Canal and progress was made in American colonization in Cuba and the Philippines. However, the man that should take credit for Roosevelt’s successes in foreign policy were William Taft.

Taft was assigned to be the first governor of the Philippines following the victory over the Spanish is the Spanish American War. Taft made remarkable progress towards moving the country towards independence. The goal was always to stabilize the country until they could enjoy their own independence. Once Roosevelt became President he moved his friend Taft to take over his Secretary of War position in his cabinet. As Secretary of War Taft set up the peace talks between the Russians and Japanese; Taft managed the construction of the Panama Canal; and he even helped thwart a revolt in Cuba to restore order and create a new Democracy with free elections.

Why Clinton Lost and the Post-Election Protests (Part III)

Trump’s policy for child care, inner city infrastructure improvements, reducing crime and drugs (bringing law and order to our cities), thwarting terrorism, and education of choice is why minorities and women voted for Trump. I have heard bigoted statements to explain why minorities and women voted for Trump. For example, male Hispanics voted for Trump because he is a misogynist. Really? Since the election I see and hear people reacting to perceived discrimination by Donald Trump by using the same methods of inciting discrimination in the form of hate, anger and violence against others. This makes little sense, yet we let them get away with it.

Part of the trouble with the post-election protests is that most of the people are young adults whose lives consist of social media with no interpersonal skills. These youths are narcissistic and do not understand American democracy customs. For instance, I saw several signs saying “Trump in not my President”. The key word is “my”. They think the election is about them. They do not care or have any clue that there are about a million voters in the Rust Belt States that are hurting. People that have voted Democrat, or maybe for Perot, over the past 25 to 40 years. Yet, the same problems persist because they have been ignored election cycle after election cycle. It is no wonder they voted for change this time around.

I am astounded to hear professional coaches and celebrities say they cannot believe half the country voted for racism, homophobia, and sexism. These folks are ignorant to the fact that the Democrats ran a bad candidate with plenty of her own baggage. They are ignorant to the fact that many people in this country are hurting and want change after decades of voting for Democrats only to be ignored. The fact Trump overcame the media, the establishment, money, and host of other issues shows that people are tired of Washington. NBC has an interview of Bill Clinton’s rape accuser but failed to play it in its entirety. But they played Trump’s 11 year old Access Hollywood video one month before the election. The truth is that NBC had the video for over a year before they aired it. Why didn’t they play the video when they got it? Because they wanted Trump to win the Republican primary since they felt he was Clinton’s best chance of winning in the general election. These are the games our media plays. So you should blame NBC for the Trump presidency. They clearly took a premeditated risk to be the hero to take down Trump, but they failed. A New York Times editorial claims they will be back to reporting the truth after the Trump win to win back customers. Over the past eight years the Times failed to cover dozens of Clinton and Obama scandals, yet they still could not sway public opinion. Media outlets across America paid hundreds of employees to find dirt on Trump, but nothing on Clinton. Over 90% of all media coverage during the election cycle on Trump was negative compared to less than 20% for Clinton despite her crimes, collusion, and lies. America has totally lost faith in the government and the media. Obviously, there are four big losers in this election: Clinton, Obama, Democrats, and the media. Yet, they still have not learned their lesson. For instance, days following the election the Clinton News Network (CNN) only covered negative stories about Trump and how he is trying to gain top security access for his children. First, the story is false, and second they failed to mention Trump will not take a paycheck and he will not take a vacation as president. Asked on 60 Minutes if he was concerned the Trump business brand was damaged during the campaign Trump said “it does not matter” because the country comes first over his business. This unselfishness is not covered, but false stories are.

Why Clinton Lost and the Post Election Protests (Part II)

The media did a good job painting Trump as a misogynist, racist, and sexist. These are all the things that I have been called, by people who do not know me on Facebook, for voting for Trump. Misogynist seems to be the big new liberal word. I am not going to defend Trump’s hurtful words, but Clinton is far worse because she has actions behind her hateful words. Clinton criticizes Trump’s action towards women but yet she remains married to a sexual predator (Trump is an accused sexual predator). If Clinton was the strong woman that others claim she is, then she would left Bill a long time ago. Obviously, it became a marriage of convenience for political purposes. What’s worse, Clinton attacked her husband’s accusers and was even caught on tape making fun of a 12 year girl rape victim whose attacker she helped to free based on a technicality. The Clinton Foundation accepts money from rouge countries that oppress women and kills homosexuals. Accepting money over civil rights concerns is a sign of bad person with no conscious. Wikileaks exposed how Clinton used the Eric Gardner killing for political gain; how the campaign demonized people of faith; and how the campaign called out those “needy” Hispanics. In fact, she is caught saying she does not like people in general. Kellyanne Conway was the first woman to lead a successful presidential election in US history. Unfortunately, this accomplishment was overlooked by the media since she was not the right kind of woman – a former Democrat and now Republican.

Then there are Clinton’s ties to corruption, lies, bad decisions, and collusion with the media. The Clinton Foundation is being investigated for “pay for play”. Less than 30% of the money in the Foundation goes to charitable causes. Most of the Foundation money pays for salaries, travel, expensive overhead, and there is evidence to show it payed for Chelsea’s education. Clinton made the bad decision to oust Qaddafi in Libya which created a vacuum for terrorism to grow (that will happen if there are no boots on the ground). This, in turn, led to the attack on the US Embassy and CIA Annex killing four Americans in Benghazi. Clinton then lied about the cause of the attack to cover up her negligence to provide proper security. What’s worse, while Obama traveled to a campaign fundraiser in Vegas Clinton failed to send help. In essence, she abandoned dozens of people under attack at the CIA Annex essentially leaving them to die. They would have all died had it not been for the heroic efforts of a few of our finest. Clinton also decided to do all of her email correspondence as Security of State on an unsecure server in her basement. Wikileaks proves that this was done to cover up “pay for play” at the Clinton Foundation. Clinton then lied about why she used the server; why she destroyed thousands of emails and electronic devices; and why she had national security information on the server. The server was hacked at least 5 times putting the lives of Americans at risk. And if all this is not bad enough, the Clinton campaign colluded with the media and the Democratic National Convention to win the presidential nomination over Bernie Sanders. Clinton was even provided debate questions in advance. Accepting the questions is just as egregious an act as the person who provided the questions. In the general election, debate moderators continued to inject themselves into the process against Trump (Martha Raddatz). Clinton and Obama were implicated in videos for trying to incite violence at Trump campaign events. Clinton has accused the FBI for losing the election for her, but the FBI did not make these terrible decisions and then lie to cover things up. Clinton needs to own up to her responsibilities instead of blaming others.

It was the third debate that was the turning point in the election. After the debate everyone said Trump did better except for his shocking answer on conceding after the election which made the headlines. (It is strange how Clinton supporters are the ones protesting while the media showers them with praise for operating their Constitutional rights while Clinton and Obama have done very little to stop these events.) Pundits said Trump did nothing to sway voters in that third debate – he just spoke to his base. That is 100% wrong, Trump was polling in the 70 - 80 percent range with Republicans and he brought them home with his debate performance. First, he talked about repealing and replacing ObamaCare at a time when premiums were going up 50% nationwide. Second, he assured people that he would place conservative judges on the Supreme Court. He even mentioned if he got a few appointments that could overturn Roe v. Wade. He successfully painted Clinton as extreme on abortion - in favor of third trimester abortions. Third, he assured people he would protect the second amendment. Clinton’s fictional answer on the Heller case should have made headlines, but it did not. However, most advocates of the second amendment understand the Heller decision better than most and her falsehoods did not go unnoticed outside the media. Clinton even claimed to want to overturn Citizens United. Yet, most Americans know that no person has benefited more from this ruling than she has -raking in over a billion dollars mostly from Wall Street (the people and corporations she claims to despise) during this election cycle. Trump paid nearly 100 million into his campaign and rightly called out Clinton for not donating one cent to her own campaign despite being worth well over 100 million dollars. Trump will not accept a pay check as President, but Clinton’s Wall Street like greed is worth noting. Although Clinton was much better prepared for the debates, her lines were rehearsed and did not come across as being authentic (or true in many instances, like her public / private answer bringing Abe Lincoln into fray).

Why Clinton Lost and the Post Election Protests (Part I)

Clinton lost the election more so than Trump won the election because she won the battle of highly flawed candidates. Statistically reviewing Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota revealed some critical insight. Although Clinton’s margin of victory in major cities and suburbs was in line with 2012 or better, she still lost all of these states except Minnesota (she won MN by 1.5%). Overall, the turnout was down from 2012 and in rural areas Clinton’s vote was down and Trump’s vote was up in almost every county. We can conclude three things after running some basic correlation on the data: 1. Democratic (or left leaning independents) voters stayed at home 2. Democratic voters voted for Trump and or 3. Democratic voters voted for a third party candidate. It was probably a combination of all three of these things. Florida was a bit different than the Rust Belt states because voter turnout was up. But we can still conclude Democrats or left leaning independents were more likely to vote for Trump or a Third Party candidate (higher correlation). We can conclude that Republicans did a better job getting their electorate out to vote or that Clinton’s Get Out to Vote (GOTV) effort energized more Trump supporters since Trump did much better than Romney with minorities and people of faith. One poll estimates that Clinton’s GOTV energized up to 15% of Trump supporters (remember the 2016 electorate looked a lot different than 2012 but Clinton used the same models to identify potential voters). And finally, Clinton had a three to one money advantage and an army of people at her command. Yet, she was outspent in Wisconsin and Minnesota by Trump. In fact, she never visited these states in her campaign. Clinton did not lose Minnesota, but it close. These were huge missteps by the Clinton campaign. There was no excuse to get outflanked by Trump in battleground states.

Trump not only had to overcome a money disadvantage but he also had to overcome a battle with establishment Republicans to win. Clinton also had the advantage of having a popular president campaign on her behalf to save his legacy. However, he was repudiated. It is my belief that people confuse approval ratings with likeability. People may personally like Obama but they really do not approve of his agenda. For instance, the popular Joe Biden campaigned for Hillary non-stop in Scranton PA, yet Clinton lost 10 points in Lackawanna County from how Obama performed in 2012. Obama has been the gift that keeps giving to the Republican Party. Democrats now have their lowest representation in federal and state governments since the Civil War.

How stunning was this victory. Trump could have lost Florida and he still would have won the election. Nobody predicted that. Yet, as stunning as Trump’s victory was, I am convinced that any other Republican candidate could have fared just as well if not better than Trump. House Republicans won the national vote by nearly 3 million votes (Despite House Generic polls showing Democrats up by 3 to 4 points) which was about 3.5 million votes better than Trump. And Trump underperformed most Republicans in Senate races in many key battleground states he narrowly won: Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin. Let’s face facts, Trump was a bad candidate, but Clinton was worse.

Over 25% of Clinton supporters had as one of their top two reasons to vote for her was because she was a woman. Quite frankly, discrimination or sexism is not a very good reason to vote for anyone. I do not understand how voting for someone because they are women is any better than Trump remarking on a woman’s looks. They are both sexist and have no place in our culture. The converse is also true, voting against someone merely because they are women is equally wrong. If discrimination or sexism accounted for a big reason why over 15 million people voted for Clinton, then she really did not have much to offer the American public in terms of policy after 30 abysmal years in public service and politics. And for the struggling people of Florida and Rust Belt states, voting based on prejudice, sexism, and discrimination were obviously not an option.

Why Were the Polls Wrong?

My models were wrong because the polls were wrong (polls are the data used to create models). I was wrong in four states: Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (Michigan is still too close to call but Trump holds a small lead). In those four states more than 23 million votes were cast and the deciding margin was less than 230,000 votes (less than 1%). Wisconsin was probably the most surprising state. Trump campaigned there a few times (the Clinton campaign did not) and it was the only state in the country where he outspent Clinton on TV ads. The Trump campaign obviously did a better job there. With both campaigns spending the waning days in Pennsylvania and Michigan it seemed the race there may be tighter than the polls indicated. Not one poll all year had Trump ahead in Wisconsin and only one poll had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania the entire year.

I gave Trump a 35% chance of winning (higher than everyone else including 538) and I even said if he wins it is highly probable that Clinton would win the popular vote (and that appears to be the case). Why did I give Trump such a high chance of winning? It became apparent that many of polls may be wrong. For instance, the average of polls had Trump ahead in Nevada. By reviewing the early vote data it looked like Clinton should win the state and she did by about 2.5%. The early vote also looked like Trump may outperform the polls in Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Iowa, and Ohio. In fact, he outperformed the polls in Iowa and Ohio by well over 5 points. Because of this, I thought Trump could outperform the polls and hence my model had him with a better chance of him winning. Unfortunately, the amount of data provided by early voting is minimal and only a few states provide Party ID and or Demographics.

Polls are created by taking data on phone calls and then weighting the data based on what the pollster feels the electorate will look like based on location, Party ID, age, gender, and ethnicity. For example, let’s look at Florida. A pollster knows from the previous presidential election what percentage of the vote is coming from the Panhandle, NE, I4 Corridor, SE, SW, and North Central part of the state. They also know what percentage of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents vote in the state as well as the gender and ethnic makeup of the electorate. They will weight their polling data to fit the electorate. A pollster may change some things such as understanding that for instance the Latino vote may be a percent higher than the previous election. Polls generally have an error around +/- 4%. So a poll saying Clinton would win by 2 points means she may win by 6 points or lose by 2 points. Hence, there is a big margin and that is why when modeling we like to take the average of several polls to average out some of the inaccuracies. The average of polls in Florida were not that bad. They had Trump winning by 0.2% and he won the state by 1.2%. I actually thought Clinton would win the state by a similar margin. Why? The early vote showed a massive turnout and an increased Latino vote. A massive vote usually favors the Democrats (it means their turnout machine got minorities to polls). Trump won the small heavily conservative counties by huge margins – about 10 points better than Romney. I did not see that coming, nor did the Trump campaign who thought the early results from Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Springs counties were going to doom them.

So why where so many average of polls not only wrong, they were wrong in favor of Clinton? Here are some polls and their error:

Florida: R+1, Iowa: R+6.6, Ohio: R+5.5, Nevada: D+3.4, North Carolina: R+3.5, Pennsylvania: R+3.1, Michigan: R+3.7, Wisconsin R+7.5, and Minnesota R+7.6. States like Virginia, Maine, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Arizona were polled fairly accurately. So other than Nevada and Arizona, states that Clinton won were polled accurately and states that Trump won were polled inaccurately.

Time will tell why this happened, but there are many explanations. First, polls may have oversampled Democrats thinking the turnout would be as big as Obama elections in 2008 and 2012. Democrats outpaced Republicans by 7% in 2008 and 6% in 2012. Exit polls suggest that Democrats only had a 4% advantage in this election. Also, polls consistently showed Trump winning 85% of Republican voters and Clinton winning at least 90% of Democrats. Exit polls showed that Trump won 90% of Republicans and Clinton won 89% of Democrats. Second, third party candidates garnered over 5% in most states and that makes polling more difficult. Third, it is possible that polling companies felt there was no way that a person as un-presidential and unfavorable as Trump could win the election and they may have altered their models to show this. In essence, the polls showed what the media wanted. Fourth, it seems that Trump won a higher percentage of working class Independents and or Democrats than what polls indicated. This was especially true in the “rust belt” states. These may be union workers who did not want to admit to pollsters they were voting for Trump. Fifth, Trump not only won non-educated Whites by over 30%, he won educated Whites by 5%. Most polls indicated he was losing educated Whites. It is possible that educated Whites could not admit to pollsters they were voting for Trump for fear of being labeled a racist. Sixth, Trump won a higher percentage on African-Americans and Latinos than Romney and these people possibly did not want to admit to pollsters that were for Trump. Seventh, polls cannot model enthusiasm. But a model can take into account that a candidate is outmanned and outspent by a 3 to 1 ratio. Finally, late deciders broke for Trump according to exit polls.

Interesting, many exit polls (the polling of people right after they vote) were also wrong. Why did it take so long for media outlets to call the state of South Carolina or Utah? Trump won these states by 15 and 20 points respectively? Nevada and Colorado which Clinton won by 2.5% were called far faster. What this tells me is that exit polls in many cases were also wrong.

2016 Election Projection (11/7)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race (Unfortunately, I think it is all over for Trump. The state and national polls are all converging.):

Poll Average: Clinton +2.9

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +3.0 (37% chance Trump wins)

The site Five Thirty Eight: Clinton +3.2%, Electoral count: 297 Clinton, 241 Trump (32% Trump Wins)

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong. This year they are converging in the same area.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+6.4

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) R+0.4

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) D+1.4

FL AA 12.5% AA 9.3%

FL HIS 9.6% HIS 14.1%

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+8.1

OH D+6 (O+1.9) R+5

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+5.9

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+9.8

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 22.1%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 27.8%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+14.5 (ME2 D+8.8)

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. HIS 9% means the portion of the Hispanic vote was 9%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012. Although African-American vote is down, the good news for Democrats is that voting is up.

2. Early voting suggests Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The good news for Democrats is that overall early voting is up. The average of the polls has Trump ahead by 1.

3. The early vote suggests Trump should win in Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). 4. Florida is lean Clinton. Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American (-3.2%) turnout is considerably lower. However, early voting in Florida overall is up overall which is a good sign for Democrats especially since there is a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote. Equally a good sign for Democrats is that polls indicate Clinton leads among people who voted early and she has a slight lead in the polls. If that is true Trump is in trouble. But a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote will not make up for a 3.2% decrease in African-American vote. That should be a net decrease in the Democratic vote by 0.5 to 1%.

5. It looks like Trump’s momentum in the polls has run out of steam both nationally and statewide. 6. New Hampshire looks like it may be in play according to recent polls and is now a toss-up. New Hampshire does not have early voting. 7. Based on the early vote Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days. Trump is up in the polls in NV, but the early vote, though lower than 2012, still points very favorably to Clinton.

8. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote. Trump can lose by 2 points and still win the electoral vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 308 to 230 and the popular vote by 2.5 to 3.5%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Maine, New Mexico, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 17 seats in the House and the Senate at 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans (That is a gain of 3 seats for the Democrats). The Republicans will also lose one Governorship.

2016 Election Projection (11/8 - Final)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race (Unfortunately, I think it is all over for Trump. The state and national polls are all converging.):

Poll Average: Clinton +3.3

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +3.0 (35% chance Trump wins)

The site Five Thirty Eight: Clinton +3.6%, Electoral count: 302 Clinton, 236 Trump (28% Trump Wins)

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong. This year they are converging in the same area.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+6.4

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) R+0.6

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) D+1.4

FL AA 12.5% AA 9.3%

FL HIS 9.6% HIS 14.1%

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+6.7

OH D+6 (O+1.9) R+5

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+5.9

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+9.8

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 22.1%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 27.8%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+13.5 (ME2 D+7.8)

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. HIS 9% means the portion of the Hispanic vote was 9%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012. Although African-American vote is down, the good news for Democrats is that voting is up.

2. Early voting suggests Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The good news for Democrats is that overall early voting is up. The average of the polls has Trump ahead by 1.

3. The early vote suggests Trump should win in Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). 4. Florida is lean Clinton. Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American (-3.2%) turnout is considerably lower. However, early voting in Florida overall is up overall which is a good sign for Democrats especially since there is a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote. Equally a good sign for Democrats is that polls indicate Clinton leads among people who voted early and she has a slight lead in the polls. If that is true Trump is in trouble. But a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote will not make up for a 3.2% decrease in African-American vote. That should be a net decrease in the Democratic vote by 0.5 to 1%.

5. It looks like Trump’s momentum in the polls has run out of steam both nationally and statewide. 6. New Hampshire looks like it may be in play according to recent polls and is now a toss-up. New Hampshire does not have early voting. 7. Based on the early vote Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days. Trump is up in the polls in NV, but the early vote, though lower than 2012, still points very favorably to Clinton.

8. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote. Trump can lose by 2 points and still win the electoral vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 308 to 230 and the popular vote by 2.5 to 3.5%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Maine, New Mexico, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 17 seats in the House and the Senate at 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans (That is a gain of 3 seats for the Democrats). The Republicans will also lose one Governorship.

2016 Election Projection (11/6)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race:

Poll Average: Clinton +2.2

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +2.9 (42% chance Trump wins)

The site Five Thirty Eight: Clinton +2.8%, Electoral count: 291 Clinton, 247 Trump (35% Trump Wins)

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong. This year they are converging in the same area.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+6.4

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) D+0.2

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) D+0.5

FL AA 12.5% AA 9.3%

FL HIS 9.6% HIS 14.1%

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+8.1

OH D+6 (O+1.9) R+5

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+6.1

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+9.8

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 21.6%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 27.6%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+14.5 (ME2 D+8.8)

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. HIS 9% means the portion of the Hispanic vote was 9%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012. Although African-American vote is down, the good news for Democrats is that voting is up.

2. Early voting suggests Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The good news for Democrats is that overall early voting is up. The average of the polls has the race even.

3. The early vote suggests Trump should win in Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). 4. Florida is real toss up. Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American (-3.2%) turnout is considerably lower. However, early voting in Florida overall is up overall which is a good sign for Democrats especially since there is a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote. Equally a good sign for Democrats is that polls indicate Clinton leads among people who voted early and she has a slight lead in the polls. If that is true Trump is in trouble. But a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote will not make up for a 3.2% decrease in African-American vote. That should be a net decrease in the Democratic vote by 0.5 to 1%.

5. It looks like Trump’s momentum in the polls has run out of steam, especially nationally. 6. New Hampshire looks like it may be in play according to recent polls and is now a toss-up. New Hampshire does not have early voting. 7. Based on the early vote Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days. Trump is up in the polls in NV, but the early vote, though lower than 2012, still points very favorably to Clinton.

8. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote. Trump can lose by 2 points and still win the electoral vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 275 to 263 and the popular vote by 2 to 3%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Maine, New Mexico, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 17 seats in the House and the Senate at 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans (That is a gain of 3 seats for the Democrats).

2016 Election Projection (11/5)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race:

Poll Average: Clinton +2.3

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +3.0 (42% chance Trump wins)

The site Five Thirty Eight: Clinton +2.9%, Electoral count: 291 Clinton, 247 Trump (35% Trump Wins)

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong. This year they are converging in the same area.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+6.5

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) D+0.2

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) D+0.1

FL AA 12.5% AA 9.3%

FL HIS 9.6% HIS 14.1%

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+8.3

OH D+6 (O+1.9) R+5

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+5.5

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+9.8

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 21.6%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 27.6%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+14.5 (ME2 D+8.8)

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. HIS 9% means the portion of the Hispanic vote was 9%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012. Although African-American vote is down, the good news for Democrats is that voting is up.

2. Early voting suggests Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The good news for Democrats is that overall early voting is up. The average of the polls has the race even.

3. The early vote suggests Trump may win very close decisions in Florida, Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American (-3.2%) turnout is considerably lower. However, early voting in Florida overall is up overall which is a good sign for Democrats especially since there is a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote. Equally a good sign for Democrats is that polls indicate Clinton leads among people who voted early. If that is true Trump is in trouble because it looks like he should lead. But a 4.5% increase in Hispanic vote will not make up for a 3.2% decrease in African-American vote. That should be a net decrease in Democratic vote by 0.5 to 1%.

4. It looks like Trump’s momentum in the polls has run out of steam. 5. New Hampshire looks like it may be in play according to recent polls and is now a toss-up. New Hampshire does not have early voting. 6. Based on the early vote Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days. Trump is up in the polls in NV, but the early vote, though lower than 2012, still points favorably to Clinton.

7. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote. Trump can lose by 2 points and still win the electoral vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 275 to 263 and the popular vote by 2 to 3%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 17 seats in the House and the Senate at 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans (That is a gain of 3 seats for the Democrats).

2016 Election Projection (11/4)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race:

Poll Average: Clinton +2.6

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +3.1 (42% chance Trump wins)

The site Five Thirty Eight: Clinton +3.3%, Electoral count: 296 Clinton, 242 Trump (33% Trump Wins)

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+6.2

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) D+0.2

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) 0.0

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+7.9

OH D+6 (O+1.9) D+?

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+5.5

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+10.9

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 21.8%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 27.6%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+15.5

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012. Although African-American vote is down, the good news for Democrats is that voting is up.

2. Early voting suggests Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The good news for Democrats is that overall early voting is up. The average of the polls has the race even.

3. The early vote suggests Trump may win very close decisions in Florida, Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American turnout is considerably lower. However, early voting in Florida overall is up overall which is a good sign for Democrats. Equally a good sign for Democrats is that polls indicate Clinton leads among people who voted early. If that is true Trump is in trouble because it looks like he should lead.

4. It looks like Trump’s momentum in the polls has run out of steam. 5. New Hampshire looks like it may be in play according to recent polls and is now a toss-up. New Hampshire does not have early voting. 6. Based on the early vote Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days. Trump is up in the polls in NV, but the early vote, though lower than 2012, still points favorably to Clinton.

7. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote. Trump can lose by 2 points and still win the electoral vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 279 to 259 and the popular vote by 2 to 3%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 18 seats in the House and the Senate at 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans (That is a gain of 3 seats for the Democrats).

2016 Election Projection (11/3)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race:

Poll Average: Clinton +1.7

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +3.4 (41% chance Trump wins)

The site Five Thirty Eight: Clinton +3.1%, Electoral count: 292 Clinton, 246 Trump (34% Trump Wins)

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+5.9

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) D+1.0

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) R+0.2

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+9.1

OH D+6 (O+1.9) D+?

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+5.6

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+10.9

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 21.8%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 27.7%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+15.5

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012.

2. Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The average of the polls has shifted dramatically today with Trump moving ahead. The early voting showed this.

3. Trump may win very close decisions in Florida, Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American turnout is considerably lower.

4. If 1, 2, and 3 are true then Early Voting does not track the state and national polls outlined at the beginning of this blog.

5. Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (probably congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days.

6. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 279 to 259 and the popular vote by 1.5 to 2.5%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 18 seats in the House and the Senate at 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans (That is a gain of 3 seats for the Democrats).

2016 Election Projection (11/2)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race:

Poll Average: Clinton +1.9

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +4.1 (37% chance Trump wins)

The site Five Thirty Eight: Clinton +3.7%, Electoral count: 301 Clinton, 237 Trump (30% Trump Wins)

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+5.9

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) D+1.9

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) R+0.4

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+12.5

OH D+6 (O+1.9) D+?

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+5.4

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+11.7

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 22.1%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 28.0%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+17

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012.

2. Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The average of the polls has shifted dramatically today with Trump moving ahead. The early voting showed this.

3. Trump may win very close decisions in Florida, Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American turnout is considerably lower.

4. If 1, 2, and 3 are true then Early Voting does not track the state and national polls outlined at the beginning of this blog.

5. Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (probably congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days.

6. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 279 to 259 and the popular vote by 1.5 to 2.5%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 19 seats in the House and the Senate at 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans (That is a gain of 3 seats for the Democrats).

2016 Election Projection (11/1)

Here are the facts for the Presidential Race:

Poll Average: Clinton +3.1

Extrapolating the State Polls (my model): Clinton +5.2

In 2012 the state poll model I did was correct and the pollster average was wrong.

Most states do not break down the early vote by political affiliation or demographics. Below are the swing states that provide some of this information:

State 2012 Early Voting 2016 Early Voting

AZ R+10 (R+10.1) R+5.3

CO R+1.8 (O+4.7) D+2.6

FL D+3.1 (O+0.9) R+0.4

IA D+11 (O+5.6) D+12.5

OH D+6 (O+1.9) D+?

NV D+6.8 (O+6.6) D+6

NC D+16 (R+2.2) D+12.5

NC AA 29% (R+2.2) AA 22.4%

GA AA 32% (R+8.0) AA 28.4%

ME D+14 (O+15.1) D+17

D+2 means the early vote had 2% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. AA 29% means the portion of the African American vote was 29%. The number in () Represents how the state voted in 2012 – R+8.0 means Romney won the state by 8 points and O+1.9 means Obama won the state by 1.9 points.

So what does this all mean? It is hard to say because this election is a little harder to prognosticate than others for 2 reasons: 1. Third Party candidates will surely get a large portion of the vote (up to 10%) and 2. Since both candidates are highly unpopular, they both will more than likely get a lower portion of their party vote than most presidential candidates. If we simply look at the trends and ignore the above two complications then we can make some educated guesses based on the early voting:

1. Trump should hold both Arizona and Georgia. Republican support in AZ is down, but it should be enough to push him over the top. Also, with African American vote down substantially in Georgia, it seems hard pressed that Clinton will make up 8 points from 2012.

2. Trump should do better in North Carolina than the polls indicate with Democrat and African-American turnout much lower. The state will be decided on an increasing number of independents. The average of the polls have Trump down by 2 points.

3. Trump may win very close decisions in Florida, Iowa, and Ohio. In both Iowa and Ohio the early vote turnout is down (early voting generally favors democrats and their get out to vote machine). Republican turnout is above schedule in Florida and rumor is that the African-American turnout is lower.

4. If 1, 2, and 3 are true then Early Voting does not track the state and national polls outlined at the beginning of this blog.

5. Clinton should win Nevada, Colorado, and Maine (probably congressional district 2). However, Republicans have been gaining share in the early vote in recent days.

6. If Trump wins the Electoral Vote, it seems as if it is highly probable he may not win the popular vote.

Without any further information, it looks like Clinton will win the Electoral Vote: 279 to 259 and the popular vote by 1.5 to 2.5%. Even if the trend (favoring Trump overall) of the early vote takes place in other battleground states such as New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, it probably will not be enough for Trump to win in these states. There must be a greater move in the polls towards Trump to suggest this is possible.

Right now I have the Democrats winning 19 seats in the House and the Senate at 50 to 50 deadlock (That is a gain of 4 seats for the Democrats).