The Hillary Clinton campaign and the mainstream media are stuck in the past. It's the past of several months ago, before the constant stream of Clinton lies had reached critical mass...before Donald Trump's policy statements overtook his off-the-cuff gaffes as news stories...before the opinion polls stopped showing what was described as an insurmountable lead for Clinton.
While Democrats have by-in-large been able to use the mainstream media as their political propaganda arm, the dam holding back the rising river of Clinton lies is about to burst and the sandbagging of the Justice Department is barely enough to stop it from flooding.
The election has been portrayed by much of the media as requiring something major to damage Clinton or help Trump in order for the result to be in Trump’s favor. But let me present a different perspective: the election is trending toward Trump and he’s not about to let that change.
Additionally, it gets more difficult all the time for Hillary Clinton’s damaged candidacy to gain more credibility and popularity. All the Democrats have is an overrated hope that they can demonize their opponent enough to make him more unwanted as President than their disgusting offering.
A CNBC article by Jake Novak, dated September 2 talked about the “groupthink mentality about the inevitability of a Hillary Clinton presidency” being in full force:
“Nowhere was this confirmation bias more evident than it was earlier this week as the Clinton team and much of the leading news pundits began pre-emptively dissecting Trump's visit to Mexico City and his subsequent speech on immigration policy in Phoenix. Their ‘conventional wisdom’ was that the trip would fall flat and the immigration speech would simply feature more of the same rhetoric Trump opponents already pre-judge as racist bombast.”
“That was despite the fact that the speech really honed Trump's immigration message into a clear move against illegal immigrants with violent criminal records. And it's been breathtaking to see the contortions his opponents have subjected themselves to in order to convince themselves that trying to protect Americans from violent crime is somehow a bad message.”
We won’t really know whether or not the polling is skewed until after the election, but the advantage Clinton has, if they are totally accurate, is greatly diminishing.
A September 4 article in the Telegraph, by Nick Allen (no fan of Donald Trump) shows Trump closing the gap:
“Surveys showed a significant narrowing of the gap between Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee, and his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
“A Morning Consult poll released on Sunday showed Mrs. Clinton up by two points, a lead that had been seven in the same poll three weeks ago.
"The latest Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll of "likely voters" in all 50 states had the race as a statistical tie, registering an eight point swing against Mrs. Clinton in the last week.
“It also showed support for Mr. Trump among Republicans jumping six points over the past two weeks, giving him 78 per cent backing in his own party.
“That was close to the 85 per cent Mitt Romney enjoyed as the Republican nominee in 2012
“An average of all recent polls showed Mrs. Clinton's lead at 3.9 points, less than half what it was a month ago.
“The boost she received after the Democratic Convention at the end of July has disappeared.
“One poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times gave Mr. Trump a three-point lead nationally.”
Support Canada Free Press
RealClear Politics listed the various polls nationwide and by state, many of which showed a major change toward Trump.
A comparison of Fox polls shows a 10 point lead for Clinton on August 3 and a 6 point lead on August 31, a 4% change in 4 weeks time. Toss in the Libertarian Party and the Green Party and it’s only a 2 point Clinton lead on August 31.
A Monmouth poll on August 8 had Clinton leading Trump by 13%, but on August 29, it was half as much, with Clinton by 7%.
An IBD/TIPP poll from August 5 has Clinton by 7. On September 2, the lead was 1 point for Clinton, and tied if Libertarian and Green candidates are included.
Rasmussen Reports has Clinton by 4% on August 4, with Trump by 1% on September 2 in the 4-way race. Reuters/Ipsos on August 4 has Clinton by 4, and on August 31 has Clinton by only 1%.
You have probably seen a number of predictions, as we look at a U.S. electoral vote map, supposedly showing how impossible it is for Donald Trump to win the presidency. Yet give a 5-6% increase per state for Trump, and the results are quite different.
A typical electoral vote map has Hillary Clinton winning around 300 or more electoral votes. So where do the 30-plus electoral votes come from to give Trump the victory?
The map on electoral-vote.com shows Clinton with 297 electoral votes – 37 more than needed to win. Trump has 197 with 44 electoral votes in states where the polling is tied going to neither.
A 2% change for Trump in the two “Barely Democrat” states, Virginia and Nevada, would reduce her total to 278. Add those to Trump and he has 216. Add in the 44 votes in tied states to Trump’s total and he would have 260, ten short of victory. A shift of 3% in Wisconsin and those 10 electoral votes go to Trump, giving him his 270. A change of 3% in Pennsylvania and 4% in Michigan would give Trump 306 electoral votes.
It doesn’t take any serious statistical analysis to show that a Trump electoral victory is possible, and even likely, if the trend toward Trump continues. But please, don’t tell that to any Democrats. Leave them be to continue planning the victory celebrations they will have to cancel.
Rolf Yungclas is a recently retired newspaper editor from southwest Kansas who has been speaking out on the issues of the day in newspapers and online for over 15 years
