It's a very full, number heavy analysis. Shipwreckedcrew's basic point is that the pollsters are not seeing the long term trend in voter behavior:
Obama Headed To Philadephia, and the Reason is in the Numbers — Bad Numbers for Joe Biden
Here's what that means. It's well known that a fair number of states that regularly go Republican actually have far more voters who are registered Dem than are registered Republican. The clear implication from that fact is that registered Dems are far more likely to cross over and vote GOP than vice versa. What SWC shows in his article is that that trend has--over the last several election cycles, including the Obama elections--been trending ever more against the Dems. You see that in the percentage of registered Dems who vote Dem versus the percentage of GOPers who vote GOP. The data consistently that ever more Dems are crossing over and that GOPers are growing ever more loyal than before to their brand:
Pres. Obama beat McCain when the numbers were 73% v. 82%
and Romney when the numbers were 70% v. 86%
Hillary Clinton lost when the numbers went to 69% v. 90%
That's twelve years, so it sure doesn't look like a blip on the radar screen.
And, says SWC, the numbers get even worse. Because the Dem registration has declined by -311K since 2008 while GOP registration has increased by +209. Result?
Even if you run an election model using the Obama high point of 73% v. the Trump mark of 90% brand loyalty, Trump wins by 64K. So:
So to get Biden a win, he needs to do better than all but Obama’s historic win in 2008, and Trump has to do significantly worse than he did in 2016.
Looked at slightly differently:
Democrats still enjoy a sizeable advantage in voter registration numbers, but a significant number of registered Democrats have consistently voted for GOP Presidential candidates for two decades. And the registration advantage has declined from 1.23 million in 2008 to only 717,000 now.
I won't run SWC's numbers for this next point, but his conclusion is that the polling results we're seeing currently in the MSM are wildly out of wack with history going back to 2008 and beyond. According to SWC's number crunching, the polls showing Biden ahead assume that he will draw 77% of registered Dems--when the best performance by any recent Dem was Obama in 2008 at 73%. That would require a HUGE collapse in GOP support for Trump, and there appears to be no evidence at all for that:
The AVERAGE for votes/registered voters for Democrats in the last 4 elections is 71%, and the best Obama did was 73%. Yet the polls say Biden will do 77%??? That 4% difference between Obama’s best performance and what the polls say Biden will do, represents 168,000 votes for Biden than Obama got in his historical first campaign.
The AVERAGE for votes/registered voters for the GOP in the last 4 elections is 84.5 — including 80% by Bush 43 and 82% by McCain. Getting only 82% as the polling claims would represent a HUGE Collapse of support for Trump among GOP voters after his number was 90% in 2016.
Heck, Romney’s number was 86% — and Trump is going to underperform Romney with GOP Voters in Pennsylvania?
No, that sure doesn't seem likely.
Remember the other day I quoted a JPMorgan Chase study and another Wells Fargo study, both seeking to predict the outcome of the election? How Investment Banks Are Looking At The Election. SWC has read Zerohedge's summary of the JPMorgan Chase study and draws the same conclusions for other "battleground" states. They're going Trump when all is said and done, because that's where the changes in party registration are pointing. Note: In the following, for reasons known only to SWC himself, SWC refers to the JPMorgan Chase study as the "Morgan Stanley" study. Don't be fooled. This is it: JPMorgan's Kolanovic Has A Warning For Those Expecting A Crushing Biden Victory, and the study is by JPMorgan's top "quant":
A quantitative analyst at Morgan Stanley has done a study of the relationship between changes in party registration and vote outcomes. Zero Hedge covered it in this article. Based on a similar evaluation, he sees almost every battleground state breaking for Trump in the end.
Now you know why Barack Obama is going to Philadephia.
And why the polls being published about the state of the race there are worse than meaningless — they are propaganda intended to suppress the GOP vote.
There you have it. Follow the link above to get deep into the weeds with SWC.
UPDATE: RedState has an article just up on early voting trends. Remember that Dems typically outnumber GOPers greatly in the early vote, and GOPers come out hugely on the day. Obviously this time is different. Nevertheless, as has already been seen, Dems are failing to meet their targets for the early vote and GOPers are exceeding their targets. With that in mind, Early Voting Numbers in Key States Are Surprising and Good News:
In Texas, which some Democrats have deluded themselves into thinking might flip, Republicans are up by 11, 51%-40%.
In Michigan, a critical battleground state, it’s 41% to 39%, Republicans.
In Ohio, the numbers are looking even better, with 46%-41 of the returned ballots favoring the GOP.
In Wisconsin, it’s 40%-38% in the requested ballots, Republicans.
Arizona is tied at 36%.
By any normal standards, those are extremely encouraging numbers for Trump.
I simply cannot believe that the crowds who stand in line for hours to spend 75 minutes with our POTUS are meaningless. The crowds along the road in California today just to get a glimpse were gobsmacking, to say the least. Furthermore, 5K of the attendees today in Carson City did not vote in 2016...does anyone think that will happen again?ReplyDelete
Oh well, there is a reason you actually play the game - I'm still amazed a bunch of college kids beat the pros from Moscow 40 years ago...is there a chance that Al Michaels could announce the results on November 3rd? DO YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? YESSSSS!
Polling and reporting on polling as we know it today is about voter suppression.ReplyDelete
Yes. Which tells you why the Dems are now telling their voters it'll be a cliffhanger--a headscratcher when the MSM polls show Biden ahead by double digits. Events have now caught up with them. They've gone from trying to suppress GOP turnout to desperately trying to gin up their own.Delete
Hey, it worked. When I switched to a newer phone, things got messed up. Maybe it was just user error. Ha!Delete
User error. It happens.Delete
Mark, the cliffhanger narrative is not new messaging from the Dems. Senior Dems, and Big Tech (specifically Zberg) have been going on and on about how we'll not know the result on election night.Delete
This never made sense in light of the polls - if Biden is up 10+, AND mail in votes and early votes trend Dem, then the simplest assumption would be that Biden would be projected winner by 9pm ET.
QED, they've known the polls are false for a while, and that in fact they are likely the converse, with Trump leading significantly. Thus their narrative, with the agenda to A. suppress the GOP vote, and B. buy time for Biden to not concede on election eve even though Trump is ahead, so that they can contest close counts in court (or even engineer fraud in Broward County gasp!).
As I said elsewhere, the courts have done a very good job taking that plan off the table--about not knowing the results.Delete
The eternal pessimist in me always feels the need to take these with a grain of salt, or play out any additional "unknowns" - admittedly there are a lot of fluid things and open questions.ReplyDelete
For example, my guess is that a bunch of those Dem crossovers are blue collar, and those may largely stay. IMO the proverbial "white suburban women" are a wash - they were largely rooting for the first woman president so that stays about the same.
But there are two other groups we know of from last time: fairweather dems turned off by Hillary, and bernie bros. Many may have just sat it out, but many crossed over for what was basically an independent.
My guess is that many of them have been thoroughly scared to death by the media brothels such that they will come home or hold their nose. While voting AGAINST someone is usually not a big motivator, I think this year it plays a role because the media has been so unbelievably over the top. If you truly believe your nemesis is LITERALLY HITLER, you will not really care who the alternative is. And I've seen a lot of social media successful shaming of those who sat it out - LOOK WHAT YOU HELPED CAUSE because you were so selfish not to vote Hillary!
That has to account for something. IMO the Dem loyalty numbers are stronger than stated above, this time around.
No time for extended details, however ...Delete
I find SWC's argument that for Biden to win he would have to do much better than the "historic" Obama win in 2008 pretty cogent. The enthusiasm isn't there for that kind of turnout. Plus, I believe much of the base is turned off by Biden.
I agree with Mark. The Dem's welcomed in the hard Left, people who think Stalin was a moderate. Now they have difficulty balancing campaigning to their base without scaring the beejeezuz out of anyone that doesn't have an autographed picture of L. Beria over their bed (looking at you Robert Reich).Delete
Sure, Biden could win, but he isn't going to win by more than 4% nationally if he does- so every national poll that shows a double digit lead for Biden is just trash and is likely not only an error, but a deliberate error.ReplyDelete
I think Trump will win if the polls stay open and accessible on November 3rd. My worry right now is that if the Democrats think they are losing, they will try to make it impossible to vote on November 3rd- by closing down voting stations and trying to run the clock out with people standing in line waiting to vote. I would encourage every Republican to vote ASAP- don't wait until November 3rd late in the day- the Democrats will try to find a way to keep you from voting.
I'm taking no chances. My wife and I will vote this week.Delete
"Vote early... and often."Delete
Not necessarily. Several stories out that mail-in voting is trending GOP and Dems are flummoxed about how to deal with it. A solid turnout election day is shaping up to be as important to them as mail-in ballots.Delete
I fear they may take it several potentially violent steps beyond just closures and back room shenanigans. If there is early voting, I would be choosing an inconspicuous time to do so. And don't dress the part. Hate to say it or sound cowardly, but thats where we are right now.... There are going to be some really hard parts after November 3 as well....Delete
Unrelated note, but I am a recent devotee to this blog. Some random link from elsewhere a couple months back, but finding myself coming here more and more. The writing style and choice of topics and tone are up my alley. So thanks to whomever is running the site. ;)
"closing down voting stations and trying to run the clock out.... violent steps beyond just closures and back room shenanigans."Delete
That's what Maoists do, even f they don't admit to being that.
So, If DJT knows of no Franco-type, what are his/ our options, beside awaiting expulsion/ Liquidation?
Count on major election violence, especially if it appears that Trump is headed for a significant win. That is part of the Dem strategy. Plan A, win straight up. Scratch. Plan B, keep it close and cheat to victory. Looking untenable. Plan C, create violence and chaos, claim that this invalidates the election, and anyway Trump is Hitler so negotiate with us or we secede and "burn this s--- down " as they say. Ok. Plan C it is then.Delete
Thing is, I thought Trump would blow out Hillary due to the enthusiasm gap. Trump won the electoral college easily, but lost the popular vote mainly, in my view, due to California and New York.ReplyDelete
This is what still gets me uneasy. The gap is even wider now, but still.
(I forgot I had a blogger account. No posts, but it is a real url)
I find it stunning that the high water mark for democrats was 73% in 08 with Obama. i would have thought he would be over 90% sheeshReplyDelete
That's the thing about America--it actually is diverse.Delete
Kinda funny ain't it, that Dems keep telling us rubes that the demographics and trend lines mean oblivion for us and eternal electoral majorities for them?Delete
I read the article. I think what might lead SWC astray is that people change their registrations as their voting patterns change over time. There is history of this across the southern states where Democrats held large registration advantages in all the states south of the Ohio River and the Mason Dixon line- yet those states were reliably Republican since 1968 in Presidential elections. Democrats probably still hold registration advantages in some them to this day. Perhaps what has happenen in PA the last 4 years is that some of the Democrats who voted for Trump in 2016 are the ones changing their registrations today- it will raise the percentages for both parties- fewer crossovers from Democrat to Republican, and more committed Republican registered voters- the act of changing is a guaranteed Trump vote.ReplyDelete
I just looked back at the 2016 numbers- another factor that favors Trump is that the percent of 3rd party votes by Republicans will go down- Gary Johnson, Egg McMuffin, and Darrell Castle took almost 3% of the vote- 2/3s of that will go back to the Republican candidate this time, while about 1/6th will go back to the Democrats- will net Trump about another 100k votes in PA. This will also apply to all the other states, too, and it is why I think he has an excellent chance to win states like Nevada and New Mexico along with New Hampshire and maybe even Virginia if turnout rises in the west of that state and Trump manages to double his share of the African-American vote.
Johnson had some name recognition. Nobody knows who the Libertarian candidate is this time. I agree turnout could lead to some surprises.Delete
Virginia learned a bitter lesson in 2018: you get what you vote for.Delete
I expect south & western VA turnout to be energetic, to say the least. Remains to be seen if they can overcome the DS bureaucrats in northern VA.
Johnson had name recognition in 2012, too, but only got 0.99% of the national vote- he got 3.28% in 2016, and McMuffin and Castle got another 0.70% between them. That will return to less 1% and essentially zero % in November- of that 3% of the vote going back to the main parties, Trump will get at 2/3s of it, and probably more. The Green Party will go back to about 0.4%, but that is only 0.4% for the Democrat to get, and they won't get all of that either.Delete
My sense of the LP nominee is, she's largely a BLM shill, so she may even draw some virtue-signaller types from Biden.Delete
Re VA's bitter lesson, I can't fathom people who don't understand that you really do get what you vote for. That they're votes for federal office are for the national party. That not voting is a vote for revolution. Hopefully the last four years have taught that lesson.
I get the sense that conservatives tend to focus on the national elections - I suppose it's a Roe-v-Wade SCOTUS thing - so the off-year elections don't get them energized.
The leftists are always energized. It's exhausting, but they must be opposed at every step or they WILL get entrenched. This is amply demonstrated at all of the cultural institutions and now many corporations.
Conservatives need to learn that there's more at stake than guns and abortion.
"more at stake than guns and abortion."Delete
Yeah, like the 1st Amend. (speech & religion), the 4th Amend. (and the next few, on defense vs. kangaroo courts etc.), and the bid to stop/ prevent "monstrous wars" (as DJT had described them).
My predictions at this point are that Trump and Biden tie in the national vote to the 1st number to the right of the decimal. Trump wins all the states he won in 2016 plus Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. Trump can win the popular vote if my secondary prediction that Democrats are differentially too afraid of COVID to show up to vote a polling station. I personally think the Democrats made a catastrophic error in depending on mail-in-voters- voting by mail is actually quite a bit more tedious than voting in person (I have done both over the years, so I know what I am talking about). I suspect that Democratic overall turnout could very well drop by up to 5-10% of their 2016 gross numbers this year given the polling numbers on fear of COVID. In short, the Democrats have scared their voters into voting by a method more difficult than just turning out in person.ReplyDelete
Fear factor is a good point... I cannot think of a single right leaner who is even slightly cowering about covid. At least a third of my left leaner f&f are hand wringing about every action all day. They scared the wrong demographicDelete
I voted on Friday here in TN. Was a very long line, and it took me an hour to get into the polling station. Straight Republican ticket, not uncommon for me, but this year I didn't even bother thinking about splitting the ticket in any manner- the Democrats need to be handed a humiliating defeat, and if they aren't, I fear for the future of this country.ReplyDelete
It’s time to fold up the Debate Commission (I forget its full name). Made up of known lefties, it “manages” the presidential debates. There will be no fairness until it is gone.ReplyDelete
This ended up on the wrong thread. Pilot error. Sorry.Delete
Larry Schweikart tweet thread on how the Dems made a huge mistake on their Harris choice combined with their covid scare and vote by mail.ReplyDelete
They thought they could drag it out for weeks, until the courts went against them.
In addition, since all the results from vote by mail will be known, they have no way to claim fraud later on.
The courts, at least at the appellate and SCOTUS level, have performed pretty admirably. Whatever else you say about Cocaine Mitch, who else could have held the GOP together to stiff Obama then stay the course against Schumer's obstructionism and fill the appellate vacancies with very solid judges?Delete
"the Dems made a huge mistake..."
Interesting question, to me anyway, is: who are these 'Dems' who made a huge mistake?
'Who' decided to investigate candidate Trump and then launch a coup attempt against him? 'Who' decided to get Flynn? 'Who' decided to impeach Trump? 'Who' decided to launch violent protests in American cities? 'Who' decided to run a senile old man with a boatload of skeletons in his closet for POTUS?
And...'Who' is paying for all of this?
IMO, the one's paying for all this are the ones calling the shots. The amount of money is too huge for these people to simply open their wallets and follow the instructions of a bunch of political hacks. That's not how the world works.Delete
I'll bet ranch, that, among the ones paying for all this, are the ChiComs, and likely some Iran oil wheels.Delete
The job of the hacks is, to know what is expected by the $$ boys, without making the $$ boys specify the quid.
As is the case in other (related) contexts, it is a sprawling conspiracy.Delete
Mark , I know you don't like to discuss the child pedo stuff, but what I'm hearing on this Hunter Biden computer stuff. Is in fact , videos of Hunter with little children NOT 16 yr olds, but way younger. Raping and Torturing on VIDEO. Don't need you to post this,unless you want. But need you to check your connection to see if your hearing the same.ReplyDelete
Here's my position, if you want to call it a position. I'll repeat allegations and even hints that are based on accounts of credible persons who have had access to the evidence or to those holding the evidence. NYP, Giuliani, Levin, Bannon--people like that. But not anonymous sources that only qualify as rumors.Delete
I'll also repeat hear what I said yesterday--the stuff about Hunter Biden is NOT per se about Hunter but about Joe Biden's enabling and financing of Hunter through Joe's criminal schemes. Margot Cleveland gets this:
The Biden Corruption Scandal Isn’t About Hunter, It’s About Joe
It's about Joe's criminal mindset and actions and his willingness to sacrifice even a son to that.
Mark, have you noticed some the recent pics of Joe... he looks ghoulish. I find its often true your face a reflects your soul.Delete
Is haggard appearance may well play into his 5-day disappearance.Delete
I guess when you're 78 years old and dying of dementia destroying your hopelessly drug addicted only remaining son's life and wrecking your political legacy and your family's name forever to further your impossible ambition in front of 330 million Americans and the rest of the World will take its toll...Delete
Remember too, it’s standard M.O. of the left to plant stories like this in order to discredit true revelations. Plus, apropos of Mark’s comments, such stories keep the focus on Hunter (and off Mr. Big).Delete
I agree completely re: Joe's criminal mindset. I saw a comment at another site where a Joe-defender made the case that many will see his "my beautiful son..." text and sympathize with the father caring for the son struggling with addiction.
I don't deny that there is a tragic element to the story. Addiction is a struggle, and some good people fail to overcome it. But at some point an addict can no longer be looked at as a good person with a struggle. They become criminals, either through gross negligence or willingly engaging in criminal activities that feed the hunger.
Those who use addicts have traditionally been called pimps or pushers, and they are justifiably viewed with more contempt and disgust than the addicts that they manipulate.
And this is Joe Biden. I don't doubt that he loves his son and that Hunter's addictions have brought him grief. I don't fault the occasional error in judgment. But he pimped his son for profit, to say nothing about the incredible risk to our national security. For that I find Joe Biden beneath contempt.
"Is haggard" should be "His haggard".Delete
"he pimped his son for profit", when, if he really loved Hunter, he'd have *kept* his son in a real rehab place, for as long as it took.
And, he'd have thereafter had a 24/7 *tail* on his son, to keep his son from fishing in sh*tty waters.
For some parents, the kids are just props on papa's/ mama's Stage.