Does the Left Understand "The Electors" ?

The current frenzy to "influence the electors" seems detached from reality. The left seems to be assuming the "Electoral College" is some sort of institutional body that sits around for four years doing nothing, and then wakes up one day and tries to decide who should be President.

It's crazy. Electors are chosen in varying methods from State to State, but...

All are chosen through the Party apparatus, and all are among the most rabid supporters of their Party nominee. In many States, the people actually vote for a "Slate of Electors" that was chosen by the nominee himself. For one to be elevated to the Party status of "Elector" one must rise to the top of the Party of Candidates inner circle of the most loyal and trusted people on Earth.

With a few exceptions, GOP electors are "Sean Hannity" type Trump supporters, and Democrat electors are "James Carville" type Hilary supporters. 

When discussing the possibility of "faithless electors" one must understand they are discussing the likelihood of James Carville deciding to vote for Trump over Hillary x 38.

In other words...

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Add a comment

Understanding Romney as Secretary of State

Many are perplexed by Trump's consideration of Mitt Romney to head the State Department. While I'm not convinced that Mitt Romney would be the best choice to be SOS, I believe there exist some pragmatic reasons for the consideration.

The State Department exists as an organizational labyrinth that reeks of dysfunction. This is the department of Government that is simultaneously in charge of issuing passports, and directing "Global Womens issues." The organizational diagram of the State Department reads like a checklist of politically correct buzzwords. The State Department even seems to delight in it's own bureaucratic complexity by making public its organizational flow chart.

Somewhere in the above mess is the department that issues passports, (the only real contact most Americans have with the Department of State) but it seems to be lost somewhere between the Offices of Global Womens issues, or Energy Resources.

Romney, for all his faults, has a unique talent for recognizing structural organizational failures, and rebuilding them into functional entities. Yet, one must realize that the size and dysfunction of the State Department makes the 02 Winter Olympics Organization look like a cub scout meeting. It will take a Hurculean effort by Romney, Trump, and the rest of the administration to convert the U.S. Department of State into an organization that's promotes America's interests abroad - instead of promoting a laundry list of politically correct liberal issues.

Put another way, in considering Romney; Trump is likely thinking that the "Ship of State" is in less need of a "captain/pilot" - and more in need of an "engineer/designer" - to rebuild it before it once again "sets sail" onto the high seas of international diplomatic endeavors.

If that's the goal, Romney is as good a choice I can think of for Secretary of State. 

Add a comment

The Early Latino Vote - Suppression Strategy

The media has begun repeating an alleged micro fact that a "surge in early voting Latinos"  spells doom for Trump.

This is highly likely to be overly hyped insignificance. It actually sounds a lot like GOP promoting analysts of 2012 supposedly "unskewing" polling data.

The fact is that 100% of this information is provided by a single source. Catalist, an organization by it's own description dedicated "exclusively to progressive organizations." This is a data mining firm that is largely contending that it has mined significant data from results that have yet to be released.

Even if one believes that they have unpublished sources to early voting data and the Latino vote now makes up 15% of the early vote instead of 10% of the early vote as in 2012; it's statistically ignorant to believe that signifies some level of direct ratcheting of Latino voting. This "surge" could be the result of an effective early voting strategy, and it is only a guess as to whether or not these are voters that would have normally voted on election day. 

I guess it's no surprise that this alleged micro granule of fact has echoed throughout the major media news as if to proclaim to Trump voters - never mind, the votes are in - you lose.  Let's try to keep this in perspective. It's likely not true, if it is true, its not likely to be significant, if it is significant, it would only be decisive in a very close election.

So, if you're a Trump supporter it's more important than ever, that you vote.

Add a comment

No, The Polls "Weren't" Wrong - the Pundits Were

As election results came in, talking heads yammered in unison, "the polls were completely wrong."

But they weren't.

As we pointed out here in late August, an objective reading of the polls (with 10 weeks remaining) was that the election outcome was hovering around the margin of error. Yet, pundit after pundit, on both sides, were sprinting to the closest available microphone to declare "It's Over" for Trump. We were not gifted with some special insight. There was simply NO WAY the empirical data showed anything but a very competitive race.

Again on October 13, in response to the Weekly Standards pseudo-intellectual Nathan Last article declaring the race over, we pointed out once again - that the data simply did not support that conclusion.

As the final polls were published yesterday, the average of the polls as aggregated by RCP showed the race in a virtual dead heat - both in popular and electoral vote. I posted and tweeted the final electoral map pictured above - and was promptly labeled a #TrumpTard. 

That is essentially how the pundit class treated anyone attempting to make an objective analysis of polling data that showed a very close race; and perhaps more importantly showed a consistent trend in Trumps favor for the final two weeks.

Last night was surprise to most, but not because of incorrect polls - because they refused to read them without the bias of their own prejudice. 

Add a comment

FBI Probe Helping Hillary in Florida ?

We typically try to keep polling results in perspective. That is, polling is an imperfect science, and should be viewed in relative terms. That is, when compared to previous polls, likely indicative of trends, but very possibly inaccurate as predicting results.

But the trend of Florida polling is more than a little puzzling. If one is to believe the currently published polls in Florida, the announcement that Hillary Clinton was under criminal investigation by the FBI caused her popularity to increase in Florida by about 3%. This seems especially puzzling when during the same period, Hillary's popularity has fallen precipitously nationally, and in every other State. 

Is there something that Florida knows that the rest of the country doesn't?

Is this a "last gasp" of the media polling industry to attempt to push Trump into campaigning in Florida rather than newly found "swing states" like Pennsylvania and Michigan?

Don't know. Just pointing out, it seems very odd that the rest of the country goes in one direction, and Florida goes the other. Then again, it is Florida.

Add a comment