Wednesday, October 7, 2020

UPDATED: Election Stuff--One Month Out

Am I the only one who's wound up about Election 2020? We're witnessing the Deep State and its propaganda branch in the MSM pulling out all the stops against traditional America and its representative, Donald Trump. There have been some positive developments, however.

First, the SCOTUS and the Appellate Courts are weighing in, reversing Obama judge decisions at the District Court level, and doing so promptly. Andrea Widburg covers this story today at AmThinker: The Supreme Court and appellate courts are drawing back from voting madness. The SCOTUS, for all John Roberts' claim that there are no "Obama judges," the justices have seen the effect of these judges--the judicial version of Soros District Attorneys. They've seen the effect and they haven't liked what they've seen, with even liberal justices (including the late RBG) increasingly slapping them down. 

They've also heard the threats of court packing coming from the highest reaches of the Dem party. They know that that's a threat to completely marginalize the Judicial Branch as a constitutional institution. After all, political impeachments would logically follow upon court packing--judges would become mere puppets of the Dem House. Even liberal justices must be frightened at that prospect and, as I pointed out earlier, that fear probably explains the fact that all eight justices joined in Justice Kavanaugh's opinion in the South Carolina case. Even the 9th Circuit, overnight, followed suit in Arizona. As Widburg notes:

On Tuesday, both the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit ruled against activist judges.  These decisions may reflect the fact that at least some judges believe that siding with the status quo could help prevent a civil war.


The 9th Circuit made the right decision.  What's intriguing is that it was a unanimous decision from three judges appointed by Reagan, Clinton, and Obama.  This parallels the four hard-left and left-leaning judges on the Supreme Court refusing to let a lower court judge amend South Carolina's laws.

While leftist district court judges are busy playing politics, more thoughtful and mature judges, even though they're leftists, may have decided that they'd rather play by the old rules and lose an election than face the possibility that a bloody civil war occurs because of the Democrats' new rules.

Second, if you're looking for some positive polling information and upbeat commentary, here is a twitter thread put out by PollWatch, which is a Republican election analysis outfit. The thread is a digest of a much longer interview and it explains some of the findings from the latest Democracy Institute (DI) poll--a poll that got two recent controversial election predictions correct: US 2016 and Brexit. 

Here's the thread (and a h/t to TGP):



1)  Nuggets from Joseph Cotto’s interview of Patrick Basham of Democracy Institute. A DI poll showed Trump winning nationally and in the Electoral College:

Basham addressed why Trump’s national lead went from +3 to +1 and why Trump’s Battleground State lead went from +7 to +4.

2) It was because Democracy Institute shifted from a 2-way to a 4-way race. He believes some are “parking their votes” with 3rd-party candidates. He senses some of these will move back to Trump or Biden, with more going to Trump. He also thinks more undecideds will go for Trump.

3) Believes in the “SHY TRUMP VOTER”:

“The shy Trump voter is not only real it is larger than last time.”  

Is not just a rural voter under a haystack:

“The shy Trump voter is much more likely to be in fact . . . an African American in an urban setting. A Suburban white woman.”

4)  “Those are votes for Trump that if they come in are going to surprise people because they are the ones who are least expected to support him.” 

There is even a shy Trump vote in MD-7 (Kim Klacik district)

Says Klacik is doing great in the race. 


“We believe . . . there are going to be significantly fewer younger voters.”  

“We think there will be at least a million fewer votes from that group in total.”


New Hampshire is a mini-Minnesota. The war and peace issue is big in NH. NH likes Trump's refusal to go to war.  

Trump is “in very very good shape there [NH].”

7)  Basham is confident Trump will win Florida. Trump can’t take FL for granted but, “Florida at the moment is bordering on comfortable for Trump.” 

He believes Florida is getting beyond Biden’s grasp.

8)  “There will be a greater number of Trump Democrats in 2020.”

Trump is leading in Minn. and Penn.

Here's a long interview with Patrick Basham of the Democracy Institute. Long means two hours, and it begins with a fairly long segment (15 minutes) discussing the over-the-top attempts by the MSM outfits to trash DI's polling. "Trash" is the operative word rather than, say, discredit, since there's essentially no analysis or argumentation involved. If you have the time, I think you'll find it interesting:

UPDATE: I'm half way through the video, and Basham makes an interesting statement--one that stood out among many others. He states that, while Biden will still win CA, NY, and IL, he will NOT win those Blue strongholds by the margin that Hillary won by--and will lose the national popular vote. Incentive for conservatives in those states to get out and vote. It does matter.


  1. I watched much of that Democracy Institute video on Sunday. The prolonged beating-around-the-bush caused me dismiss that organization and its poll as unreliable.


    Here is what I think is happening.

    A rather large portion of the people who voted for Trump in 2016 are irked by his conduct in relation to COVID-19. Those particular voters are irked that he does not wear a mask, that he talks too much at his COVID press conferences, and so forth.

    Nevertheless, those voters will come around to vote for Trump and Pence. They will not vote for Biden and Harris.

    Practically everyone who voted for Trump in 2016 will vote for Trump again in 2020. Plus, a lot of conservatives who did not vote for him in 2016, positively will vote for him in 2020.


    The big variable is Black men. Many of them did not vote at all in 2016, and that is a major reason why Clinton lost.

    * Will Black men vote in 2020?

    * If so, then for whom will they vote?

    The answers to those two questions will not depend significantly on the COVID issue. Rather, the answers will depend mostly on whether Black men fall for the Democrats' effort to whip up a national hysteria about racism.

    1. Mike, in fact you appear to agree with Basham--somewhat. He believes that this time around Trump's margin will owe a lot to black voters and hispanic voters. He also makes a lot of the enthusiasm gap, which appears to be large and measurable. He expects depressed Dem turnout. SWC and others have also made that point--the only reason the Dems are making the push to extend voting is because they know they're behind. Fortunately the courts appear to have made their decision--led by a seemingly unanimous SCOTUS--and are shutting that stuff down.

    2. If the length is off-putting, might I recommend Monday's episode of The National Pulse with Raheem Kassam (of Brexit / Nigel Farrage advisor). They spent a good 20 minutes with Dr. Basham and it felt good to hear his take on it.

  2. Paul Sperry can be hit or miss, but some of his hits have turned out to be quite good. He's reporting via twitter now that Biden is under active federal investigation for his role in directing counterintelligence against the Trump campaign in 2016 and his Ukraine activities, with cooperating witnesses in the latter. Now that's an October surprise if true :)


    1. As I have long suspected, Sullivan has been an active participant with Holder, Flynn's former attorneys, and the prosecutors to screw over Flynn.

  4. Hmmmm ....

    “ Republicans Tied or Leading Mail-In Ballot Returns in Arizona, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin”

    - TexasDude

    1. Without following the link, I'm gonna say that's major bad news for Dems--and especially in those states. It probably indicates--among other things--low turnout for Dems. It's probably why Dems are scrambling to get a ground game going.

    2. Gateway Pundit link made small via tinyurl.

    3. "probably indicates--among other things--low turnout for Dems."
      For more on this (and related matters), see :
      "Looking at registration numbers, turnout, the enthusiasm gap between Trump and Biden...."

  5. "forecastingintelligence" has a gripping take on the first debate, at :

    "Let’s say you had to choose between “decency” versus the “obnoxious arsehole” as your tribal leader? Most of us would choose the decency candidate every time over the arsehole.
    But how about a “decent but weak” candidate versus the “strong but an arsehole” leader?"....

  6. Not that this really means anything: but I hope fervently that Trump does not let Wray, Haslip, and about a dozen others resign when it is proven he has won another term. He should make a point of firing them as overtly as possible and wish any company hiring them "good luck" getting a gov't contract.
    Tom S.