Saturday, February 6, 2016

Kasich Coming 2nd In New Hampshire Ideal Result For Trump



The latest polls to 2/6/16 out of New Hampshire appear to present the best possible picture for Donald Trump.
Trump has leads of between  14 points and 22 points. It would be assumed that after the debate tomorrow's final polls will show an even better result for Trump.






Kasich has jumped to second on 17% tied in one and 1 point ahead of Rubio in another on 14%. If that is the end result on election day it would be the best case scenario Donald Trump.

If Kasich finishes second Rubio third and Cruz fourth (or fifth) going into South Carolina where Kasich would have little support, the last poll has him on 1%, the situation would seem ideal for Trump


Kasich would of course get massive media coverage. which has started already with this huge puff piece  

"The transformation of John Kasich"


 And the MSM. particularly Fox would be 24/7 "Kasich surges" as they discard "Cruz surges' and to a lesser degree "Rubio surges."

All this puffery would give Kasich some momentum going into South Carolina but  I can't see him appealing to the voters there especially if Trump comes out of New Hampshire with a solid win.

The longer Kasich stays in the race the better for Trump who can keep hammering at Cruz on his right whilst Kasich can hammer at Rubio on his left. 

At this point it doesn't seem feasible for Kasich to win the Nevada caucus and the Florida primary, but he can hold down Rubio and Bush's support which would leave Trump in a very strong position to keep rolling up pluralities in state after state.

Trump's opponents may be one state wonders, Cruz in Iowa, Kasich (2nd) in New Hampshire and possibly 1st in Ohio.

This is where Trump's nationwide poll lead, which has been discounted by pundits, may actually be the pointer to his final success as his support is broad whilst others is narrow.

Chaos Theory; Bloomberg, Sanders And Trump 3rd Parties?

If anyone thinks the title of this article is to fanciful to be taken seriously, such people would also have said, two years ago, that Donald Trump being Republican front runner and 74 year socialist Senator from Vermont having a 30 point lead on Hillary Clinton in the upcoming New Hampshire primary would be preposterous.

Yet, here we are.

Scott McKay at 'The American Spectator' "It's Happening Just  Like I Told You" adds another layer to this wild and wonderful election. He sees an indicted Hillary Clinton leaving the race and not Sanders nor Biden becoming the nominee but Michael Bloomberg. Whether you agree with that scenario or not two things are clear. 

The scenario regarding Hillary is perfectly feasible if not imminent. He sets out why Bloomberg could spend unlimited money, and would be acceptable to the party stalwarts, because they see him as a harmless centrist unlike Sanders. And anyway, they would expect to lose and he would be expendable and allow for some new blood to contest in 2020 free from the Clinton's grip.

On the other hand Douglas Schoen writing in The Wall Street Journal "Why Mike Bloomberg Can Win" sees Hillary surviving and Bloomberg entering the fray as a self-financing third party candidate taking on the Republican wilder shores of Trump or Cruz and the tired old Democratic machine. 

This has been trial ballooned for years (going back to 2010) and with Bloomberg not getting any younger this may be his last best shot. There is a whole history of Bloomberg trial balloons including my thoughts on, what seems perfectly logical, a Bloomberg/Bush ticket.

So on the left the possibilities are;

1.Hillary quits and Bloomberg buys the Democratic nomination with an acquiescent old guard via the "Super delegates."

2. Hillary somehow holds on (they will have to pries her fingers from the nomination) and Bloomberg advises that such a scenario is morally repugnant (which it would be of course) and goes third party. In the name of "national unity" he chooses a Republican and who would be more of such a symbol than Jeb Bush, as his running mate?

3. The "progressive" youth who have invested so much with Bernie Sanders, are enraged and loudly proclaim they will not support Hillary who is so badly scandal tainted, and Sanders is forced by acclamation to run as a "Progressive." If Elizabeth Warren joined the crusade the left would be in ecstasy.

So much for the left. What could play out on the right? Clearly in this confused and confusing time nothing is too far fetched, in fact I struggle to find any scenario which could not easily eventuate.

But lets have a go as things stand now.

1. The populist insurgency of Donald Trump wins state after state and even with their utmost labors the Republican Establishment can't stop him getting the nomination.

2. The Republican Establishment's labors bear fruit and Trump is denied the nomination at the convention (or via Iowa type shenanigans earlier on) and it goes to one of (or in tandem) Bush/Kasich/Rubio. Trump's masses of supporters are enraged and walkout and Trump runs as an Independent with Sarah Palin as his running mate.

3. Senator Cruz wins the nomination and the party splits, not formally, but Establishment voices make it known they won't work for his ticket. They could even put up a spoiler third party ticket (Romney?) like the Democratic Establishment did
in 1896 against the radical William Jennings Bryan.

At this point if Sanders is the Democratic nominee a Bloomberg third party run is a near certainty.

So in summary, in November we could well see Third Party runs by Trump, Bloomberg and Sanders (and even Romney),Hillary, Sanders or Bloomberg as the Democratic nominee, Cruz or Trump or an Establishment choice as the Republican nominee.

Again, for anyone to consider any of these scenario's as "outlandish" I refer them back to the opening paragraph. 

Now, as to who would have 269/270 Electoral College votes that is an impenetrable mystery at this point, the more likely result would be that the House would have to choose the president and the Senate the vice-president. If that happened the ensuing chaos would make the election period seem like a summer picnic.

Friday, February 5, 2016

UPDATED 2/5; Donald Trump's Outstanding Poll Day; New Hampshire-

UPDATE 2/5

Trump has leads of between 17 and 21 points in New Hampshire





A flurry of polls  to 1/4/16 came out today all showing Donald Trump with substantial leads in New Hampshire-all taken post Iowa. The polls run from a Trump lead of ten points to 21 points-really polling is an inexact "art" but the lead in the aggregate is obvious;
"Some of these recent NH polls have an MOE of up to and above 6%. At what point does a poll like that become junk? They are heavily adjusting the numbers because they don't fit the turnout model."


Boston Globe/Suffolk MOE 4.4%
WBUR MOE 4.9%
UMASS MOE 4.8%
ARG MOE 5%

CNN MOE 6.8%

Note Cruz's collapse into fifth place on only 7% in new Suffolk poll as Iowa catches up to him


This indicates a dramatic decrease in support for Cruz, who recently pulled off a first-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. Cruz had stood at 12 percent, tied for second with Kasich and beating Rubio at 10 percent, in a late January version of the same poll.

Most New Hampshire polling, both before and after the Iowa caucuses, suggested that Cruz and Rubio were both comfortably ahead of the remaining Republican candidates in New Hampshire and neck-and-neck with each other in the contest for second place. This poll challenges that narrative and underscores Cruz' difficulty in bringing his performance in New Hampshire in line with his Iowa victory and with nationwide polls showing him to be a clear favorite for second place.
TPM’s PollTracker average shows Rubio pulling ahead in the Granite State, beating Cruz by 15.3 percent to 12.2 percent, while Trump overshadows them both at 32 percent."





Nationwide Trump's post Iowa position shows a return to reality after the Democratic poster PPP Polling had him only four points ahead of Rubio. PPP Polling's articles shoudl come with a notice "For entertainment purposes only"



 New Reuter's five day nationwide tracking poll





Thursday, February 4, 2016

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Palin's Endorsement Saved Trump's Campaign For New Hampshire


Endorsements are usually worth a bucket of warm saliva-Palin said as much when asked about her endorsement of Donald Trump "I don't think endorsements mean all that much she advised "reflecting on the Iowa result.

Hers was, however an exception. If she hadn't endorsed Trump he would have finished behind Rubio (who he finished only 1.3 points ahead of) and his campaign would be in serious jeopardy. I don't think she cost him a vote and if she gave him 1% (Rasmussen showed her endorsement was a net positive) that 1% may just have made the difference between going to NH in a good position and being written off by all the media with no momentum at all going into the crucial next  primary.

Commentator Michael JN Thompson wrote "It is clear that Palin saved Trump from losing by double digits in Iowa. He wouldn't have broke 20% that's for sure. In terms of the Governor’s impact, Trump won West Iowa, the region where the Governor has been the strongest and where Steve King’s congressional district in Iowa is located."

Just after Palin endorsed Trump Nicolle Wallace in The New York Times summed it up in one sentence "(Donald Trump)  Should he come out on top in Iowa, he has her to thank."
Trump as it turned out clung to second place by 1.3 points over Rubio so the reality is Trump has Palin to thank, not for the win but for saving his campaign but for his placing second and having only one less caucus vote than Cruz.

The Washington Post gives confirmation from an unimpeachable source-the Cruz camp;

"There were signs that the right was not united behind Cruz. Former vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, a tea party and evangelical heroine, endorsed Trump at a splashy rally in Ames.The nightly surveys conducted by the Cruz campaign showed that Palin was a boon for Trump — 67 percent of Iowa Republicans had heard of her endorsement, and of them, 19 percent were more likely to support Trump. Only 13 percent were less likely to."

This net 6 point positive differential is exactly the same as Rasmussen found in an analysis prior to the vote;

"RASMUSSEN;"Net 6% of Iowa voters say Palin's endorsement helps Trump"
For Iowa Republicans conservative voters particular, a Palin endorsement is a plus" 59% of Republicans, hold a favorable view of Palin This includes 25% with a Very Favorable view"
Net 11% of conservative Iowa voters believe Palin's endorsement of Trump will help him."
 
And, putting the lie to the MSM meme that Palin 

is "unpopular"Rasmussen 

further found "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of 

Republican voters say former 

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin shares the values 

of most GOP voters 

throughout the nation.

The effect of Palin's 
endorsement was dramatically illustrated, by of all people the "Morning Joe" consultant who produced a graph of the effect of her endorsement on the betting markets. The rise from Trump being behind to a sharp increase ahead is dramatic-and these are people who put their own money on the line.



The effect of Palin's endorsement amongst Iowa women was immediate and dramatic;a 20% increase and amongst Tea Party Supporters a striking 33% increase


These two graphs from Real Clear Politics show the aggregate "Poll of Polls" results for the various candidates. On January 19th the date of Palin's speech in Iowa Trump and Cruz were within one point of each other. On January 26th when the full effect of the endorsement was felt Trump had a near six point lead.




That Trump lost by only three points can be considered remarkable. He hardly used Palin on the ground to supplement what turned out to be a weak get out the vote effort (she campaigned for him in Tulsa which in retrospect seem a wasted effort) and her election day efforts were mostly tied up with national media rather than the retail campaigning at which she is so adept. 

I reviewed what went wrong with Trump's campaign "Lessons learned" but not using Palin to full advantage can certainly be added to the list.

After Palin's endorsement there were over 10,000 articles across the media 99% of which were negative to hateful. Only, in a round about way, did Nicolle Wallace and Rasmussen get it right as did the Washington Post after the election.

Apart from the Post there is not a word of acknowledgement of Palins' contribution just continued denigration. That the Trump team might ignore the media onslaught and use Palin to the fullest extent possible in South Carolina (whose Governor, Nikki Haley owed her election to Palin and is now supporting Rubio) seems good advice.

That Trump is still a credible force in New Hampshire, rather than limping in after a distant third finish in Iowa, should reinforce the debt his team owes to Palin****and hopefully concentrates their minds about the vital role of good old fashion meet the folks retail campaigning.
 
If Trump soldiers on to the nomination the power of Palin with the great mass of ordinary folks across America, despite the most vicious efforts of a rabid media and Establishment (whose force Trump has now experienced) must surely commend her as running mate.


****
Hmm got 15,000 more votes than Iowa winner Rick Santorum and 500 more than Iowa winner Mike Huckabee