Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a subtle reason I believe Trump is going to bury Clinton in November.

Look at this interview with Hugh Hewitt.

Just two weeks ago, Hewitt said Trump was a cancer who would kill the GOP dead, deceased and departed by bloody murder. He also said the GOP should change the delegate rules so they can dump Trump. And he was serious on both counts. This wasn't hyperbole.

By all measures, Trump should have blasted the crap out of him and refused to ever talk to him again. Yet here he is not only being interviewed, but mulling over Hewitt's recommendations to his face on air.

Trump has no problem wading into extremely hostile press waters in front of the entire world.

His dispute with Megyn Kelly was a bit different because there was a lot of leverage with Fox and Roger Ailes going on behind the scenes. She was more of a pawn for a long time than a player. (btw - Once she understood that, she went and fixed the hostilities, just like Trump did with Hewitt above.)

Clinton will never do that. An equivalent would be for her to appear on The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur. I doubt we will ever see her there, or if so, definitely not this early in her campaign. And imagine if Uygur ever called her a cancer two weeks prior. That would be a deal killer and he would go on the Clinton blacklist forever.

So how will this favor Trump? The principle is that you can mine voters from the audiences of those who hate you if you go before them and be reasonable under fire.

Clinton refuses to go before hostile audiences. So guess what? They will remain hostile for the overwhelmingly most part. Oh, she did Fox recently, but that was relatively softball and more to say she wasn't chicken. A campaign talking point when she needs it. I don't expect too many repeat performances.

Love Trump or hate him, no one can deny his courage in facing down hostile press people, in group or one on one--or in being reasonable with them. He does a lot of press. Every day it's something new.

Trump will call them dishonest to their faces or, like above, he will accept recommendations for consideration. And with their respective audiences come more votes. Day after day after day...

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump just posted the transcript of his speech on Facebook (see here).

Luv it...

 

Michael

I lean towards Trumps command of the facts as long as he doesnt again use the "Look at those hands".

Gary Shilling:

"This election rivals 1828. Followers of the Boston patrician and Harvard-educated John Quincy Adams said Andrew Jacksons wife was a "whore" and an "adulteress," while his mother was "a common prostitute." Jacksonian newspapers called Adams "The Pimp" who'd had premarital relations with his wife."

Andrew, in 1806 killed another man in a duel for impugning her reputation. 

The election of 1824 pitted the two against each other resulting in Adams becoming the president after neither had enough electoral votes resulting in the House of Representatives deferring to the terms of the 12th amendment. 

https://olddominionlibertarian.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/how-the-constitution-could-let-the-house-stop-both-clinton-and-trump/

"However, the Electoral College tells a different story than 1992. Unlike Ross Perot, Johnson has won a narrow first-place plurality with approx. 34% in three smaller states: New Hampshire, Nevada, and New Mexico, totaling 15 Electoral Votes. The remaining states are near evenly divided: the Democrat ticket has 260 Electoral Votes and, despite being four points behind in the popular vote, the Republican ticket has 263 Electoral Votes." 

 "Far fetched? Absolutely. Impossible? I don’t think so. Unprecedented? Not quite. In 1824, a very similar scenario played out among John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Henry Clay. Jackson, seen as unfit despite being the clear popular vote winner, was passed over in favor of popular runner-up Adams, thanks in part to a deal with 4th place candidate and Speaker of the House Henry Clay to appoint him as Secretary of State. "

We can hope. 

[Mikee]

Zero Hedge:  Trump issues statement on Brexit

"The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union, and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration. 

Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again."

 

[Guyau]

.

Michael said at the top of this page "I believe Trump is going to bury Clinton in November."

RCP: Clinton v. Trump v. Johnson

If Trump were to bury Clinton, it looks so far that that would have to be by a steep decline in support for Clinton. Trump has now about the percent he is going to get then. He is not someone over whom vast numbers of voters are not yet decided. Even if he comes up to 40% in a bury-victory, it will remain that 60% of the country voted against him (and the ones who didn't vote certainly were not among his supporters).

[PDS]

3 hours ago, Guyau said:

.

Michael said at the top of this page "I believe Trump is going to bury Clinton in November."

RCP: Clinton v. Trump v. Johnson

If Trump were to bury Clinton, it looks so far that that would have to be by a steep decline in support for Clinton. Trump has now about the percent he is going to get then. He is not someone over whom vast numbers of voters are not yet decided. Even if he comes up to 40% in a bury-victory, it will remain that 60% of the country voted against him (and the ones who didn't vote certainly were not among his supporters).

There are a lot of things not to like about Trump winning, but I don't think this is one of them.  

Bill Clinton won in the early 90's with a low 40% plurality.    That didn't seem to affect him much.   Nobody complained that he hadn't won fair and square. 

No recent President has won much more than 50% of the vote, so a 40%+ plurality victory, ala Bill Clinton, doesn't say much--one way or another.   Moreover, the same will likely be true for Hillary. 

[Guyau]

.

It's something to like, and something that ought to be said of them daily, whichever one wins. To be sure, Clinton may rise further in the polling, and so far as power goes, it will depend a lot on how the Congressional elections go, at least in Clinton's case. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now Trump is bringing out Christopher Hitchen:

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It may not look like it on the surface, but the following is some mighty fine campaigning for Donald Trump among Bernie supporters. I know some voter-switching from Sanders to Trump is coming from this episode.

Thank you, you old Clinton cane-totin' fart.

And thank you Cenk for letting Bernie's supporters know all about it.

Michael

[Guyau]

On June 24, 2016 at 0:43 PM, Guyau said:

.. . . To be sure, Clinton may rise further in the polling, . . .

That didn't take long -- 47%

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Two very good harbingers for great things to come (for Trump supporters):

From Daily Mail:

Look who's coming to dinner: Trump dines with Rupert Murdoch and wife Jerry Hall at posh Scottish golf course – but the meal's on the house because The Donald owns the place!

and from PJ Media:

'This Is Not My Party': George Will Goes from GOP to Unaffiliated

It looks like Murdoch is throwing in the towel and Will is going off pouting with his elitist losers--may he cure his cough.

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

I dont read tea leaves nor play Ouija. I have speculated in the past and had my ass handed to me. But I never gambled the principal. ) Before getting carried away with the tsunami of (market) sentiment. The market looks at Obamas approval rating (gas and jobs reports are good). Clinton not getting indicted became more a certainty with Obamas advocating for Clinton, my opinion. 

"Moody’s economy-based election model predicted every state outcome correctly in both 2008 and 2012. It shows Clinton winning 332 electoral votes, well north of the 270 needed to claim victory. In fact, every state should go the same way it did last time, because home prices are appreciating, gasoline is cheap, incomes are rising and voters already approve of the job President Obama’s doing..."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clinton-will-win-in-november-says-the-economy-2016-05-25

“There are only two things that could change the model between now and November: the approval rating and gas prices,” Moody’s economist Dan White said.

The model predicts election results by state, assuming that whichever party wins the most votes in a state will receive all of that state’s Electoral College votes. (Two states, Maine and Nebraska, allow electoral votes to be split by congressional district.) The model’s dependent variable is the share of the vote received by the incumbent party in each state. Independent variables used to predict that share fall into three categories: 
 

	The two parties’ share of the popular vote in previous elections. This captures some of the noneconomic factors affecting election results, such as states’ general political leanings.
	“Voter fatigue”—the tendency to turn out an incumbent party that has held the White House for two or more terms.
	Changes in economic conditions before the election, specifically trends in gas prices, house prices, and real personal income.

Using historical economic and election data back to 1980, the 2016 model has correctly predicted the outcome of the last eight presidential contests. For the 2016 election, the Moody’s Analytics economic forecasts are used in place of historical data. 

Forbes: "The market expects Hillary to win. So there no point focusing too much on that, it is already discounted in prices." Jim Oberweis - Oberweis Asset Management

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/16/expect-a-clinton-blowout-over-trump-survey.html

"Eighty-three percent of U.S. CFOs said (12.5% Trump- 4.2% Other) they believe Hillary Clinton will become the next president of the United States, according to the latest CNBC Global CFO Council survey, conducted between April 29 and May 11."

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Geoff,

Ha!

The mainstream press and polls ALL said Brexit was not going to happen. (The fact that the elites own both the mainstream media and polling companies, and the elites were the only ones who stood to lose with Brexit had nothing to do with it, I'm sure.  )

These same folks keep saying the same thing about Trump, too. He ain't going to happen according to them. In fact, they've been saying this since last June. He's not even supposed to be in the running anymore.

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

I know, I know. Till the cows come home. ) 

Brexit happened. Im not sure there is an election parallel between Brits and us. It may be that Britain was represented more by those primarily concerned with legal aliens on the street corners than understand financial downside. Markets dont like uncertainty, theres much volatility.

Bregret may be realized when 1 month vacations turn into permanent layoffs or the NHS turns waiting rooms into morgues. The question over whether a vote to leave was worth it can only be answered by Brits intent on having England running like it did in the "good" old days. Either way it will require years and be painful getting sorted. )

Despite the rousing Trumproarian charge, or whatever it is, reality will eventually set in, Jan 20 in the form of stultifying compromise and political expediency. In the aftermath, voters will continue to vote and the world will continue to turn and in all probability I will have forgotten what caused the early enthusiasm.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is one of the most civil, most thoughtful, debates on some of the issues Trump has raised and injected into the mainstream I have come across.

I am very suspicious of Van Jones because, I admit, I adhered to Glenn Beck's attacks on him without looking at anything else when I first heard of him. I'm trying to correct that inside myself and just look and listen to identify without prejudice. I can judge once again after I get that right. The more I see of him, the more cognitive dissonance arises in my mind and the more I suspect I did not get it right at first.

The man I saw below debating Ann Coulter is not a deceiver, at least not to my bullshit meter. I might be wrong, but I think he speaks from the heart, even when I disagree with him. He's either wicked good at deceiving or I followed the wrong initial overview of who he is at root.

Of course, I love the Ann Coulter of today. She is crazy good at articulating what Trump supporters like me think, excesses aside.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just saw something that tickled me, but not for the obvious reason.

Elizabeth Warren made an attack ad against Trump. But she used a Trump supporter as one of her examples of the people who she claims are damaged by Trump. I thought the headline was cute, so I watched it:

Lo and behold, there is Michael Levin.

I don't know him personally, but I have watched a ton load of videos by him about writing. He's a very good teacher since he's a famous ghost writer (and has ghost-written many bestsellers). Unlike celebrity authors, he's the one who has to get the nuts and bolts of writing right.

His tagline is "books are my babies" and he usually signs off by bowing and saying "“Namaste,” which is a New Agey yoga-like way of saying: peace and love as we share the divine spark.

(I actually like that... See? I told you I had a woo-woo side  .)

Anyway, it was cool seeing him misused by Pocahontas.  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's Alex Jones in an epic rant. He's cussing a little, so this video might get taken down.

I already saw one earlier this year where he was drunk and cussing up a storm (I remember it being right after Cruz announced he was leaving the primary race, but I'm not 100% sure). That video didn't stay up for more than a few hours and I'm sorry I didn't think to download it. Boy did he lose it in that video, too. A full on bombastic in-your-face bear-your-chest-and-thump-on-it drunken tirade.

Not so in the video below. There he starts to lose it a couple of times, then pulls back. 

Maybe I should worry that I'm going nuts because I actually understand this thing. I know what he's talking about, even at the end.

Dayaamm!

 

I hope it stays up...

Michael

[Mikee]

If people in power are "openly admitting it's a world government" doesn't that mean they don't think anyone can do a damn thing about it?  That it's over?

It's all about power.  They either have it or they don't.  We'll see if there even is an election or if Trump is still alive when we get there.  Brexit is already sounding like it's dead.  The people be damned.  What'ya gonna do?  Shut up and take your handouts...  There wouldn't have even been a referendum if they'd thought they would lose it.  When the results get reversed what will anyone do about it?  They'll say "the people" changed their minds...  "they didn't mean it".

I'd rather be a pessimist and be pleasantly surprised.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I agree with Ann Coulter about the polls.

Michael

[Guyau]

(Remark about polls begins at 7 minutes.)

Just before the California primary, Hillary Clinton remarked that she no longer trusted the polls. I noticed, however, that Reuters ended up predicting that primary quite well. So once it is eve before the general election, I'll likely check in here and see how they do.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump talking against rape.

The rape of us all (unless you are a crony capitalist insider).

Michael

[PDS]

Hmmm.   

Today's Trump sure doesn't sound like he did way back in 2013:

"My concern is that the negligence of a few will adversely affect the majority. I've long been a believer in the "look at the solution, not the problem" theory. In this case, the solution is clear. We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability.

Is this possible? Is this a new frontier? Yes and no. There is the fait accompli strategy -- stay under the radar -- and the passive aggressive strategy, acts of terror used to paralyze and so on -- so the bottom line must be balance. Rationality must rule. There are philosophical approaches to economics. However, at this point, we don't so much need philosophy as we need action. Which way to proceed is the question."

A cynic might conclude that...ah, never mind.

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump talking against rape.

The rape of us all (unless you are a crony capitalist insider).

[...]

Michael

Yikes, that is a strong word.  I don't like Trump using it, and the analogy here is that there isn't an analogy at all, these are too dissimilar of things.  Many women are sensitive to the word and I think he'll distance more women if he continues using it...

 

[Jules Troy]

What? Only 270 pages and the threads are fizzling out?

[KorbenDallas]

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

 

What? Only 270 pages and the threads are fizzling out?

 

Jules,

Have no fear. I've been crazy busy. But Trump is raising a ruckus and I intend to talk about it.

The anti-Trumpers are being lulled into complacency by the following (which is causing me a certain amount of amusement).

After Cruz and Kasich left the race, Trump received a bump in polls. That's normal. Now that Bernie has been mathematically beaten, Hillary received a similar bump. That's normal, too. But the press decided to sell this bump as a bunch of anti-Trump stuff and the anti-Trumpers are swallowing it whole. I'm even reading articles about Trump being clinically insane, having the policy understanding of a 3rd grader, yada yada yada. It's back to laughing at him.

I swear, it's like the beginning of the primaries all over. Even Nate Silver is predicting--in loud voice--Trump's ruination. (We saw how that worked out last time, didn't we--like week after week?  )

(As Ghandi said, first they ignore you, then they laugh you, then they fight you, then you win.  ) You woulda thunk these anti-Trumpers wouldn't want to do the same pattern again so soon after getting their asses handed to them on a silver platter. Who knows? Maybe they like it.  

So since the anti-Trumpers think they've got this one sewed up, they aren't commenting much.

But they will.

Oh, but is this going to be fun.

btw - Oh my God you might think--the polls polls polls. Don't worry. Trump works in phases, not single knockouts. He knows exactly what he needs to do in each phase, but has enough flexibility to shift tactics if necessary. Trump fights more like Ali (taunt them, then wear them down until near the end, then KO) rather than Tyson (KO in the first minute). Right now he's only in the 3rd of 4th round and dancing up a storm. Wait until after his national team is in place, VP pick, more specific policies like his recent trade speech, the conventions and, especially, the debates. Then we can talk about polls.  

Michael