TRUMPING THE POLLS

Also published at: http://www.newsmax.com/ScotFaulkner/gore-quiniipiac-nbc-realclear/2016/10/24/id/754994/ #TRUMPING #therealgame #draintheswamp

Objective evidence is pointing to Trump winning on November 8. This may come as a big surprise to those already jockeying for Hillary Inaugural tickets.

There are major disconnects between the evidence and the polls.  Are polling companies accurate, biased, or clueless?

Most major news outlets feature national and state polls with Clinton maintaining a five point lead that is slowly shrinking.  However, the Investor’s Business Daily, Rasmussen, and LA Times tracking polls are showing Trump pulling ahead. 

All liberal, and many “Never Trump”, pundits have used these polls to declare Hillary the winner.  On its Saturday morning show, National Public Radio shifted to discussing how a Hillary White House would operate.  The media is hailing Hillary as the embodiment of 2016 as a “change” election.  Of course, the media means changing the sex of the Oval Office, not the policies.

What is real?  What is fantasy?

Polling is supposed to be a scientific sampling to achieve accurate insights predicting future results.

2016 seems to be more about fabricating samples and insights to shape future results.  Not since the Harris Poll secretly inflated Humphrey’s support to show him leading Nixon by three points just before the 1968 election has polling been this partisan.

It is all about weighting turnout.  How many registered Republicans and Democrats will vote in 2016?  Most pollsters are assuming 2016 will have the same voter turnout ratio as 2008 and 2012.  They are asserting that November 8 will witness participation by 45 percent Democrats and 36 percent Republicans, just like the two highest Democrat turnouts in recent history.  Quinnipac, Fox, Bloomberg, NBC-Wall Street Journal, and the RealClearPolitics average, all embrace this assumed Democrat dominance.

This assertion automatically gives Hillary an Obama-sized victory.  This is promoted by the “mainstream media” as their narrative is that Americans are just as enthusiastic about electing the first woman as President as they were electing the first African-American.

The facts invalidate this narrative.  This year’s primary battle saw a 35 percent increase in Republican participation, while Democrats fell by 26 percent. 

Votes are generated as much from enthusiasm as inclination.  The “fervor factor” for voter turnout manifests itself in crowds, yard signs, and social media following. 

The media is hiding the great enthusiasm gap in the way they are covering, or covering-up, the candidate rallies. Trump’s crowds have totaled 342,955 as of a week ago.  Hillary’s rallies have attracted only 13,970 during the same period. 

This is where fantasy takes flight.  The media creates the impression of equal enthusiasm with tight shots of both candidates surrounded by supporters.  The reality is that Hillary’s crowds, even for special events with former Vice President Al Gore, are counted in the 100s. Other Clinton rallies have been cancelled for lack of turnout. Trump’s crowds are counted in the tens of thousands. A keen eye sees the Clinton banner peeking-out beyond just four rows of supporters.  A sharp ear knows Clinton’s applause and shouting sound like a small crowd.  Clinton is not using the sound amplifiers that faked enthusiasm at her convention.  The media rarely pulls back to show Trump filling stadiums and field houses with zealous fans.

Clinton enthusiasm, outside of the media, is nonexistent.  One observer recently mused “how can Hillary charge $250,000 for a speech, when no one turns out for her free ones?” 

Contrast the microscopic Clinton crowds to the 100,000 people who turned out to hear Obama on October 18, 2008 in St. Louis, Missouri.  There is a definite disconnect.  If Clinton is so far ahead, where are the Obama-sized crowds?    

On social media Trump’s 10,951,235 Facebook “likes” bury Hillary’s 6,597,785.  On Youtube, Trump’s videos attract 90.8 Million to 24.9 Million views for Clinton.

Drive anywhere in non-urban America and you see thousands of Trump signs.  Many of these are in parts of states not known for Republican sympathies.  Many others are in locations that have never displayed Presidential preference - until now. 

Something very special is happening in our nation.  November 8 could shame many pundits and pollsters. 

Unfortunately, they have no shame.

Reversal of Fortune

What kind of President will Obama be?

He has numerous role models ranging from the utter failures of Bush the younger and Carter, to the mediocrities of Bush the elder, Eisenhower, Ford, Kennedy, and Johnson. He can learn from the brilliant flame-outs of Nixon and Clinton or be inspired by the clarity and certainty of Reagan.

There will be many reality checks in the coming months and years ahead to help Obama and Americans focus on what is working and what needs further refinement. The most fascinating phenomena will be watching how the changing power position of Republicans and Democrats may change their world views. In Washington it is all about partisan pot shots, not principle. You are for or against something because your opponent has taken the opposite stance. No one cares if the other side actually has a good idea – admitting such a thing may undercut your next fundraising campaign or harangue on CNN.

So, let's review who was for what during the last eight years:

Republicans were solidly for an imperial presidency. They cheered every expansion of presidential power and executive privilege.

Republicans were for national government. From “No Child Left Behind” onward, Republicans ignored the tenth amendment to our Constitution in order to promote nationalism over federalism.

Republicans were anti-libertarian. They enthusiastically curtailed basic freedoms and kicked down every barrier to privacy in their zeal to find terrorists in our midst. The fact that they found about as many real terrorists as they did weapons of mass destruction was immaterial.

Republicans were for big government. Budgets expanded, earmarks were embraced, and new agencies were built.

Republicans ignored congressional oversight. The Bush administration could do no wrong. Foibles were overlooked or forgiven. At one hearing Rep. Tom Davis shrugged and said it was no big deal that $5 billion in cash was missing in Iraq.

Democrats, on the other hand, became zealots for oversight. Rep. Waxman held one hearing after another on a wide range of issues. Senate Democrats hauled countless Administration officials before their committees to explain their actions.

The media was also relentless in their exposing Bush and Republican scandals and incompetence. Conflicts of interest, cronyism, and nepotism were documented and railed against.

Now everything is different. The Democrats are in the driver’s seat throughout Washington. So, the question must be asked. Will this change of fortune change everyone’s point of view? Will Republicans still cheer a strong presidency under Obama? Will Democrats still want to zealously review executive branch actions? Will the media continue to root out Administration scandals?

For a vivid insight let’s turn to today’s “Morning Joe” program. Chris Matthews, one of the relentless attack dogs against Republican skullduggery, had the following exchange:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that --
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!
MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

Let the games begin!

Crossing the Line

When did the media begin running our democracy?

During the 2000 Presidential election the media changed the colors of the electoral map. This reversed nearly a century of the media portraying Republican states as blue and Democratic held states as red. The colors echoed those used throughout Europe for conservative and right parties versus labor or socialist parties. Old videos of the 1980 and 1984 Presidential election coverage show the U.S. all blue for the Reagan landslides. It is why “Blue Dog” Democrats were Congressmen from “blue”, or Republican, states who supported Reagan.

Once the media confused everyone about what was a red and blue state they began using those colors to frame every campaign and commentary. We never had so much “red state” “blue state” references until they unhooked the colors from anything meaningful. Why did everyone else follow suit? Why didn’t conservative and Republican leaning media just ignore this revisionism?

A more insidious media intervention is underway in the 2008 Presidential campaign. The media is trying to dictate when each phase of the campaign begins and ends. Party rules in both parties state that there is no official nominee until delegates cast their votes at national conventions. The media is demanding that this should be abandoned so they can begin covering the general election - right now!

Recent history of Presidential nomination fights show that they end at the national convention. In 1992 Governor Bill Clinton had 1,234 more delegates than were needed of the nomination, yet Governor Brown and Senator Tsongas still retained their delegates and went through the roll call of states. In 1988, Governor Michael Dukakis had 824 delegates more than were needed for the nomination, but Jesse Jackson allowed his 1,219 delegates to cast votes at that convention.

On the Republican side, Nixon had just 26 more than needed for the nomination in 1968, so Governors Rockefeller and Reagan, along with eleven other candidates, went through the first ballot with their delegates intact.

It is hard to imagine Walter Cronkite or Huntley & Brinkley demanding that Senator Eugene McCarthy dropout of the 1968 race before the convention even though Senator Hubert Humphrey had 456 votes more than needed for the nomination. I do not think Frank Reynolds or Ted Koppel would have carped to Senator Ted Kennedy about dropping out before the 1980 convention when President Jimmy Carter had already clinched his renomination with 456 more delegates than were needed.

Democracy and freedom of expression visibly frustrate pundits who want everyone to dance to their preconceived notions and adhere to their seat-of-the-pants predictions. They should go back to reporting and analyzing the news, instead of trying to control it.

Shameful

The 2008 Presidential elections are unique for many reasons. It is the first time since 1928 that neither major political party had an heir apparent. It is a year where major issues were discussed and where American faced strategic challenges. Candidates and voters were all finding news ways to connect via information technology and information outlets not even available in 2006.

It is therefore appalling that the mainstream news media (MNM) has completely opted-out of the proceedings. This is according to a new report compiled by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University.

The study monitored Presidential campaign coverage by 46 MNM outlets since January 1, 2008. Nearly 80 percent of the coverage was about the race itself – polls, results, and campaign activities. Eleven percent dealt with candidate crises like Reverend Wright or Bill Clinton’s role in Hillary’s campaign. Less than 7 percent of the stories were about the policy stands of the candidates. The MNM’s examination of the candidates’ actual records made up less than 2 percent of the news stories.

The American public deserves far better than this. The multi-million talking, and sometimes “shrieking”, heads should be ashamed of themselves. Americans are facing major issues with the economy, immigration, the environment, healthcare, and energy. There is a real substantive debate about the role of government in America and America’s role in the world. Each candidate pledges change, but we should find out what kind and how much is really going to happen if they are elected. None of this seems to matter to the MNM.

As I have observed in other columns, the overpaid reporters and anchors of the MNM would rather be drama critics (covering the performance) or sportscasters (covering the race). These are the easiest things to report, as they require no more than looking at the same things everyone else is seeing and then making some high-handed comment that supposedly enlightens us poor mortals. Shame on the MNM for ignoring real news. Shame on us for watching their drivel.

They Live

The image in Vice President Cheney’s glasses ignited some wonderful speculation across the “blogosphere”. One of the more inspired takes was linking the image to John Carpenter’s 1988 film “They Live”: http://gawker.com/378357/cheneys-glasses-reflect-terrifying-truth

In that film, an out of work construction worker finds a pair of glasses that unmasks the space aliens among us. As the campaign season continues a number of things are happening that are unmasking the truth about candidates and the media.

Obama’s remarks about rural people embracing guns and religion out of bitterness has shown him holding the same contempt for real America as most liberal politicians. For him to demean people exercising their rights under the first and second amendments of the U.S. Constitution is truly unnerving. He and his surrogates are focusing on the “bitter” portion of the remark, but they have already been unmasked.

Obama’s lofty statements about embracing diversity are just campaign rhetoric. He is willing to pander to Americans in the “flyover” sections of our country to get their votes. Once in office, he will revert to form and listen to the usual liberal elite and the Washington power brokers. So much for change...

A CNN reporter apologized for fixating on Obama’s “bitter” remark and the misstatements of the Clintons, exclaiming, “we just have nothing new to talk about until April 22”.

Excuse me. Admitting that the news media has to wait until the next primary election to find something “important” to report is appalling. We have three people running for President. The media should be aggressively probing every aspect of their policies, their inner circle, and their record. This long hiatus between primaries offers an ideal opportunity for the media to provide real insight into who will be our next leader. Instead, the talking heads are adrift. It is time for these news outlets to fire their multimillion “talent” and find some real news reporters.

The final unmasking occurred at a local Republican Lincoln Day Dinner. Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809, but local GOP party organizations across the nation hold their tributes when speakers or good weather are available.

This Lincoln dinner was held in a fire hall and had all the trappings of grassroots politics. Then the program began. A long line of candidates from Governor to local tax assessor came to the microphone to plead their case for contributions and votes. Even accounting for the neophytes, it was a deeply disturbing showcase of what is wrong with today’s politics.

Several candidates actually thought it was Lincoln’s birthday, showing their basic ignorance of our history. Others spoke about national issues, although they were running for a local office, showing their basic misunderstanding of the job to which they aspired. Many cited their only credentials as having lived all their lives in the area or having a loving spouse. One undercut this credential when he had to look down at his written remarks to read, “I could not be here without recognizing my loving wife”. He also had to peer down at his written speech when he later stated, “I am a lifelong Republican”. My skin crawled.

Then various incumbent legislators stood at the podium. They ignored the 150+ audience in order to banter with their colleagues sitting nearby. They must have thought they were the new “rat pack” and that the audience just came to watch their interplay. The inherent insincerity among legislators made the spectacle even more obtuse. Maybe I have been involved in politics too long. When I was younger such events left me energized, this one left me depressed. Or maybe politicians are just getting sloppier with their deceptions.