Trump By A Landslide?

[EE_]

Trump By A Landslide?
by Tyler Durden
Aug 29, 2016 9:40 AM

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Based on this analytic structure, Trump may not just win the election in November--he might win by a landslide.

If we believe the mainstream media and the Establishment it protects and promotes, Trump has no chance of winning the presidential election. For starters, Trump supporters are all Confederate-flag waving hillbillies, bigots, fascists and misogynists. In other words. "good people" can't possibly vote for Trump.

Even cartoon character Mike Doonesbury is fleeing to Vancouver to escape Trumpism. (Memo to the Doonesbury family: selling your Seattle home will barely net the down payment on a decent crib in Vancouver.)

For another, Trump alienates the entire planet every time he speaks.

The list goes on, of course, continuing with his lack of qualifications.

But suppose this election isn't about Trump or Hillary at all. Suppose, as political scientists Allan J. Lichtman and Ken DeCell claimed in their 1988 book, Thirteen Keys to the Presidency, that all presidential elections from 1860 to the present are referendums on the sitting president and his party.

If the public views the sitting president's second term favorably, the candidate from his party will win the election. If the public views the sitting president's second term unfavorably, the candidate from the other party will win the election.

(Lichtman published another book on his system in 2008, The Keys to the White House: A Surefire Guide to Predicting the Next President.)

Author/historian Robert W. Merry sorts through the 13 analytic keys in the current issue of The American Conservative magazine and concludes they "could pose bad news for Clinton."

If five or fewer are negative for the incumbent, the incumbent party will win the election. If six or more are negative, the incumbent party loses the election. Merry counts eight negatives for President Obama's second term, which if true spells defeat for the Clinton ticket.

Whether the 13 issues are positive or negative for the candidates is of course open to debate, but consider what it means that Trump won the Republican nomination despite the near-universal opposition of the Establishment.

Consider that some polls found that 68 percent of adults think the country is on the wrong track and a recent average of six polls on the subject concluded that 64% of adults feel the nation is moving in the wrong direction.

This means 2/3 of the nation's adults no longer buy into the Establishment/ mainstream media's narrative that the economy is expanding nicely, things are going in the right direction and Hillary Clinton has a lock on the presidency.

Merry scored the economy as a positive for the incumbent party, but based on the public's view of where the nation is heading, I suspect the reality that the economy is weakening rapidly can no longer be hidden from the voting public. If we score the economy as a negative, that's nine negative keys for the incumbent party, well above the six minimum.

Based on this analytic structure, Trump may not just win the election in November--he might win by a landslide--with landslide usually being defined by an overwhelming advantage in electoral college votes or 60% of the popular vote.

As improbable as this may seem at the moment, consider the improbability of Trump capturing the Republican nomination. Consider the nature of Clinton's support: a mile wide (encompassing the entire Establishment) but only an inch deep.

If the mainstream media has failed to persuade the American public that everything's going in the right direction, why should anyone remain confident that they can persuade the American pubic that Hillary will be their president come heck or high water?

As I have noted before, there are very few ways left to stick your thumb in the eye of the elitist, predatory, self-serving Establishment that won't get you tossed in prison other than voting against their candidate, which in this election is Hillary Clinton.

Memo to Clinton supporters: if you want to persuade the American public the nation is going in the right direction, you'll have to actually change the direction rather than just promise more of the same.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-29/trump-landslide

[Ares]

That depends if the Electoral College will vote for Trump. They are not bound to vote with the popular vote.

[Joshua01]

That depends if the Electoral College will vote for Trump. They are not bound to vote with the popular vote.

So why have a popular vote then?

[Ares]

So why have a popular vote then?


The Constitutional Convention in 1787 used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia delegation had proposed it first. The Virginia Plan called for the Congress to elect the president.[13] Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election.[14] However, a committee formed to work out various details including the mode of election of the president, recommended instead that the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-fifths compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct". Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he was elected by the Congress.[15] Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[16]

The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.[17] Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern that the large states would otherwise control presidential elections.[18]

In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.[19] Additionally, in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Republican government (i.e., federalism, as opposed to direct democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and powers, would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.[20]

Although the United States Constitution refers to "Electors" and "electors", neither the phrase "Electoral College" nor any other name is used to describe the electors collectively. It was not until the early 19th century that the name "Electoral College" came into general usage as the collective designation for the electors selected to cast votes for president and vice president. It was first written into federal law in 1845 and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. § 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors".[21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

[Joshua01]

Simple math would have been better

[JohnQPublic]

I think this is possible. The polls were completely useless during the first part of the Republican Primaries.

[Neuro]

That depends if the Electoral College will vote for Trump. They are not bound to vote with the popular vote.

It would be interesting if they didn't. I suppose the electoral college vote is public, and those who got in on Trumps ticket would stick there neck out if they vote for Hillary. The tension created would be decapitating!

[Ares]

It would be interesting if they didn't. I suppose the electoral college vote is public, and those who got in on Trumps ticket would stick there neck out if they vote for Hillary. The tension created would be decapitating!

It would also lead charges of a stolen vote. As divided as the country is right now, in all honesty I think the Electoral delegates would be risking their lives if they voted against the popular vote.

[crimethink]

As I've said multiple times, what Trump is perceived to stand for cannot and will not be allowed to win.

(((They))) will not permit "racism" and "bigotry" to have a victory.

[Neuro]

It would also lead charges of a stolen vote. As divided as the country is right now, in all honesty I think the Electoral delegates would be risking their lives if they voted against the popular vote.

I thought I said that already... ;D

[crimethink]

It would also lead charges of a stolen vote. As divided as the country is right now, in all honesty I think the Electoral delegates would be risking their lives if they voted against the popular vote.

Boobus Americanus has shown that he will do nothing, even when raped repeatedly.

Now, if the Electoral College voted to ban beer and football, then maybe some heads would roll...

[Neuro]

As I've said multiple times, what Trump is perceived to stand for cannot and will not be allowed to win.

(((They))) will not permit "racism" and "bigotry" to have a victory.

As soon as Obama put out his forged birth certificate, Trump didn't say shit, despite it was proven forged within hours. He's a teamplayer, he'll do the same this time despite massive amounts of election fraud evidence. And then he'll set up his Trump Controlled Opposition News operation (TrumpCON), and make a ton of money on that!

[Jerrylynnb]

I was also disappointed that Trump dropped the birth certificate issue with Obama's photoshopped offering.

But, after thinking about it, I sort of go along with Trump's thinking.

One thing, remember he wasn't arguing in a court of law, where precision and finer details make all the difference - a jury is required to examine all the evidence in its minutest details and make a considered and well-thought out decision.

But Trump was playing to the general public, where, surface appeal and superficial arguments are about as deep as it goes. You can see how Trump has mastered the art of public appeal in his speeches - he needn't go into finer details, but, stick with the overall points and just keep hammering those in.

If Trump had tried to make hay out of the photoshopped birth certificate, he'd have lost the overwhelming majority of the public and would be leaving himself open to the counter charge that he was like a mad scientist, wearing a tin-foil hat and swallowing nut-job conspiracy theories whole hog.

Now, those of us here are probably familiar with photoshop and layers and all, and we could see that the birth certificate was a cut and paste job right away, but, that is because we are computer literate, and, we have to remember, the general public IS NOT.

So, although I was disappointed, I can see the greater wisdom in his approach.

As president, he can appoint a prosecutor to bring the O'man into court over that bogus birth certificate, and, drive the layer's point home. But that argument belongs in a court of law, not as part of an election campaign where the public can so easily be swayed (like restless cattle on the edge of a stampede).

You gotta' hand it to the "T" man - I think he is one hell of a lot smarter than I am, and probably most of us here (no insult intended).

[crimethink]

You gotta' hand it to the "T" man - I think he is one hell of a lot smarter than I am, and probably most of us here (no insult intended).

Not smarter; more clever, more crafty. Like a Jew.

Trump is a master confidence man, aka, a con man.

http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_20/1542681/160519-trump-clinton-0014_43b68e75ee8a5e932bc0b4007dccfc02.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg

"We're 'enemies'." (Donnie ROTFLHAO)

[Neuro]

I was also disappointed that Trump dropped the birth certificate issue with Obama's photoshopped offering.

But, after thinking about it, I sort of go along with Trump's thinking.

One thing, remember he wasn't arguing in a court of law, where precision and finer details make all the difference - a jury is required to examine all the evidence in its minutest details and make a considered and well-thought out decision.

But Trump was playing to the general public, where, surface appeal and superficial arguments are about as deep as it goes. You can see how Trump has mastered the art of public appeal in his speeches - he needn't go into finer details, but, stick with the overall points and just keep hammering those in.

If Trump had tried to make hay out of the photoshopped birth certificate, he'd have lost the overwhelming majority of the public and would be leaving himself open to the counter charge that he was like a mad scientist, wearing a tin-foil hat and swallowing nut-job conspiracy theories whole hog.

Now, those of us here are probably familiar with photoshop and layers and all, and we could see that the birth certificate was a cut and paste job right away, but, that is because we are computer literate, and, we have to remember, the general public IS NOT.

So, although I was disappointed, I can see the greater wisdom in his approach.

As president, he can appoint a prosecutor to bring the O'man into court over that bogus birth certificate, and, drive the layer's point home. But that argument belongs in a court of law, not as part of an election campaign where the public can so easily be swayed (like restless cattle on the edge of a stampede).

You gotta' hand it to the "T" man - I think he is one hell of a lot smarter than I am, and probably most of us here (no insult intended).
Why on earth did he get involved and started to lead the birther movement then?


http://youtu.be/k8TwRmX6zs4

Trump effectively killed the birther movement, by staying silent, after Obama posted his obviously fake layered birth certificate...

It really isn't that difficult to grasp, if people would have heard of the forged birth certificate from the leader of the birther movement. Instead total silence while Obama spunk him in the face...

He's a teamplayer!

[PatColo]

So why have a popular vote then?

to pacify 'murkan "voters" :D

http://g02.a.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1JoRZKpXXXXcxaXXXq6xXFXXXy/Childrens-Electronic-Backseat-Driver-Car-Seat-font-b-Steering-b-font-font-b-Wheel-b-font.jpg

[Jerrylynnb]

I can entertain crimethink's post:

"Trump is a master confidence man, aka, a con man."

but I haven't seen any of Trump's victims (of being conned) come forward in the public eye with their complaint?

Have I missed it?

Is there a cite somewhere?

He's had lots of employees and former business dealings, and, it would seem likely that, were he to have screwed any of them over, they would be all over the TV and youtube with their story? No?

'Makes me wonder - maybe he has been fair and square with his employees and former business contacts, so, we got no sour grapes to hear about, straight from the horse's mouth, that is.

I'd like to go read about it, if there is any. He's got me thinking maybe he's been a straight-shooter, so far.

Hit me back with a website or youtube bad-mouthing him for having been screwed over as an employee or business contact.

[crimethink]

I can entertain crimethink's post:

"Trump is a master confidence man, aka, a con man."

but I haven't seen any of Trump's victims (of being conned) come forward in the public eye with their complaint?

You are one of Trump's victims. All the evidence is in front of you, and yet you still want to "believe."

He's conned you into thinking he's on your side.

[midnight rambler]

You are one of Trump's victims. All the evidence is in front of you, and yet you still want to "believe."

He's conned you into thinking he's on your side.

There you go in your fantasy world* again!

*it's ALL a fantasy world!

[Neuro]

There you go in your fantasy world* again!

*it's ALL a fantasy world!

What is it of this you don't understand?

http://youtu.be/fQgDgMGuDI0

Do you think he had to go and say these things to be "electable"? Do you think those who vote for him support this? Do you?

[Cebu_4_2]

Seriously, the US.gov IS ISrael. There is no other way in.

Trump is a smart man, either he is an Israel front or trying to get in from the back. If he was a front then all the MSM and hillary camp is a fraud. He stands all to lose, his entire empire and most likely kids and wife. If he is a fraud he would be a Ross Perot or Ron Paul........... We know how that all turned out.

Trump has a different angle and I support him for just that.

Let the goy have some hope.

[Neuro]

If he was a front then all the MSM and hillary camp is a fraud.
Yes, they are, and he is. The goy would be better off putting their hopes in lottery tickets!

[Cebu_4_2]

Yes, they are, and he is. The goy would be better off putting their hopes in lottery tickets!

Oh so Pepe...

[cheka.]

even uber-shitstain usa today admits trump is crushing killary according to social media

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/08/04/trump-clinton-social-media-twitter-facobook-youtube-snapchat/87974630/

===============================================

another msm rag admits a lot of killary's online support is completely fake

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3038621/More-2-MILLION-Hillary-Clinton-s-Twitter-followers-fake-never-tweet.html

More than 2 MILLION of Hillary Clinton's Twitter followers are fake or never tweet – and she's already under fire for 'buying' fake Facebook fans

Two different online audit tools say no more than 44 per cent of Hillary's 3.6 million Twitter fans are real people who participate in the platform

The newly minted presidential candidate is fending off accusations that her Facebook page is full of fake 'likes'

Her Facebook fan base includes more people from Baghdad, Iraq than any US city

When she was secretary of state, her agency paid $630,000 to bulk up its Facebook likes, but pledged to stop after she left

[Jewboo]

https://i.sli.mg/k2YEmn.jpg

[cheka.]

that's some funny sh-t...and spot on

[Neuro]

https://i.sli.mg/k2YEmn.jpg


LMFAO! Hahaha

[steyr_m]

That depends if the Electoral College will vote for Trump. They are not bound to vote with the popular vote.

I think the electoral college system is a bit goofy. I grew up in the US and I do not fully understand it...

[cheka.]

I think the electoral college system is a bit goofy. I grew up in the US and I do not fully understand it...

all you need to know -- each state gets a certain number of electoral votes (mostly based on population). whichever candidate wins that state gets ALL of the electoral votes of that state. the rest of the crap is no importa

as states get more or less population their electoral votes are increased or reduced

538 votes are divided amongst the states plus dc. dc gets 3 of that. every state gets 2, no matter the population...and the balance is dependent on how many reps they have in the house of representatives (which is based on population)

[crimethink]

I think the electoral college system is a bit goofy. I grew up in the US and I do not fully understand it...

If you understand that the Electoral College system was created to allow an absolute veto of the Peoples' choice(s), it becomes easier to understand the entire scam, uh, scheme.

The Electoral College can "legally" ignore the popular vote and electoral votes. And it would be completely "constitutional" (one of the reason I only celebrate the Bill of Rights, not "the Constitution").

Each state (s)elects Electors to the Electoral College, each pledged to a candidate. There are rules and restrictions on not voting consistently with the respective states' popular votes, but, so-called "faithless electors" can, in nearly all cases, "vote their conscience"...or according to conspiracy and/or cash.

In short, the popular vote is a sham. An illusion. Just as we "conspiracy theorists" have alleged all along. The real election occurs in the Electoral College, and 48 states allow the Electors to cast votes contrary to their pledged candidates (with varying degree of sanctions - only two states disavow the votes of faithless electors).

[Cebu_4_2]

Each state (s)elects Electors to the Electoral College, each pledged to a candidate. There are rules and restrictions on not voting consistently with the respective states' popular votes, but, so-called "faithless electors" can, in nearly all cases, "vote their conscience"

Exactly what happend in this state. THe designated electoral people were replaced with 'replacements' that didn't share the same ideals as the people. They made a stink about it but nothing came of it, so our replacements will most likely go hilary or 3rd party. Quite a system we have to vote in this cuntry. Were in the South, not deep but none the less by the signs and flags these electoral folks aren't going to be liking the aftermath.

[steyr_m]

If you understand that the Electoral College system was created to allow an absolute veto of the Peoples' choice(s), it becomes easier to understand the entire scam, uh, scheme.

The Electoral College can "legally" ignore the popular vote and electoral votes. And it would be completely "constitutional" (one of the reason I only celebrate the Bill of Rights, not "the Constitution").

Each state (s)elects Electors to the Electoral College, each pledged to a candidate. There are rules and restrictions on not voting consistently with the respective states' popular votes, but, so-called "faithless electors" can, in nearly all cases, "vote their conscience"...or according to conspiracy and/or cash.

In short, the popular vote is a sham. An illusion. Just as we "conspiracy theorists" have alleged all along. The real election occurs in the Electoral College, and 48 states allow the Electors to cast votes contrary to their pledged candidates (with varying degree of sanctions - only two states disavow the votes of faithless electors).

This is why I think Trump will never be elected. The system is rigged.

[steyr_m]

I personally think an event will happen and Obama will have a 3rd term

[Cebu_4_2]

I personally think an event will happen and Obama will have a 3rd term

Utter BS, it's here like it or not bitches.