How #Trump won

How #Trump Won

For those of you still catching up to reality of President-elect @realDonaldTrump, let me (as someone that predicted his victory in August 2015) enlighten you to how it really happened (vice how he did it which is false because he did not know he was going to win until late in the campaign). I will make a two page argument based on objective outside observation. I favored neither Trump nor Clinton and I argued they were both dangerous candidates. I hoped @GovGaryJohnson would make the debate stage and then at least have a chance at winning.

The first question to address is can you win if you lose popular vote? This is the stupidest question; popular vote versus electoral college is pointless until election law is changed. If you win the electoral college you win, no special mention nor extra value to winning the vote total. That is how you win. Remember the Clinton campaign mocking Trump's misunderstanding of how to win, they should have heeded their own advice. They didn't make swing states a priority. The goal of an electoral college is to prevent New York and California from deciding all elections. If you live outside these two areas you want to make sure large population centres, and all the big city priorities, don't swamp other concerns. State electoral voting demands that candidates make every state a part of the strategy rather than allowing them to ignore flyover states.

Consider all the possible, if somewhat far fetched, election outcomes against a crude timeline. If you make a matrix of all possible outcomes like so:

Candidate	Decided during Primary	Decided before Nov 8	Decided on Nov 8
Trump
Clinton
Johnson
Stein

And you consider the most likely reasons for candidate choice:

Candidate	For Candidate	Against Opponent	Change vice Status Quo
Trump
Clinton
Johnson
Stein

You don't need to fill them in, just consider how the results align with these possible causes. The reason for the timing as in primary, before election day, and on election day considers the impact of media, scandals, coverage, debates and so on as the likely turning points for people to decide which they would vote for. These are arbitrary and fuzzy but generally align with major information thresholds. The people that decided earliest had the least information, the people that decided later had the most. Did having more information change the result? Both sides expected revelations against the other candidate would change the outcome. The election outcome suggests that both GOP and DNC solidified large portions of the electorate that decided on one candidate early. But that wasn't the difference.

The deciding factor was disenfranchised voters returned to politics, unemployed/desperate needed change, or otherwise opponents of the status quo wanted change. The preponderance of new voters went to Trump. It was people that turned off politics over many years that realized there was a real chance for change with a candidate that owed no debts to anyone. He proposed economic relief and policy restructuring – even without detail – that convinced enough voters he might change the status quo. That was the election decision. Logically, more people decided, in the primaries, to vote Trump than decided to vote Clinton. That included voters that don't partake in elections in general that changed behaviour because this election was different. Information didn't matter and as I describe below information against Trump didn't work for this very reason. They didn't care what he did or said, they convinced themselves with the LEAST information that he was the best chance for change. Does the proposition that normal/average people decided with the least information at the earliest moment and then stubbornly defended their choice sound more or less likely than alternatives? To me, this is the simplest explanation.

This explanation fits the most possible outcomes and the events leading up to the election; most voters decided early. Without Gov. Gary Johnson or Dr. Jill Stein on the debate stage to alter the visibility / give attention to 3^rd party alternatives the vote came down to who wanted change over who wanted status quo. Both Trump and Clinton negative ratings negated each other just like most of the scandals. Neither is pious nor perfect.

The fact that famous, even pious people like the @Pontifex, people took turns insulting or criticizing @realDonaldTrump and all those pleadings did not change the outcome means that liberals did not anticipate all outcomes nor did they understand voters. The Clinton campaign truly believed they had won, in part because they were taking biased / skewed samples, but also because they deluded themselves into thinking they COULD change enough voters to win. 

There was no chance of that. That is the reward for hubris!

What really happened was most voters in the electoral majority, most average normal voters, believed and could see first hand from a lack of good paying jobs, that the USA needed to change directions. They were paying too high a price for globalization and the evidence is ready for all to see: the empty rusting factories that used to give voters a good living. In fact, "change voters" have been voting for hope and change since at least George Bush II. Bush II was the new sheriff in town, a street smart governor that wasn't a beltway insider. He promised them a stop to globalization, to make economic changes that kept jobs, but instead got distracted by 9/11 and wars. The same with Obama over McCain and Romney. He was the hope and change candidate. The underlying belief is that the rules aren't fair and the people wanted globalization to stop, if that means trade wars and tariffs then so be it.

The point is Obama, Bush, and now Trump were the more plausible change candidates than their opponents. This is a direct rebuke of free trade policy. Capitalism is choking as it swallows the world and these victims of the rise and fall of prosperity wanted another change November 8 2016, a promised dropped 16 years in a row by other promisers.

Most of the normal, average voters must have decided on Trump early on. The way that famous person after famous person failed to dent Trump's popularity, the way that $1.2 billion Clinton marketing did nothing to sway voters, it means that simple people whom decided for Trump felt shame or anger about their choice when it was rubbed in their faces. Whenever something embarrassing or ridiculous was revealed about Trump they took it PERSONALLY that the accuser was insulting them for being allied to Trump. They were being personally mocked for their choice. That made them even angrier and more determined, Trump supporters were like rabid dogs whereas Clinton supporters – because she is an odious candidate despite the varnish – were like fickle cats. Clintonites were not sanguine enough about their choice to match that level, including cheated / defeated Sanders supporters that felt (rightly) betrayed by the Democratic party. The delicious irony is, the more that sanctimonious elites lined up with Clinton, the more President +BarackObama talked, the more Bush-era apparatchiks lined up with Clinton, the more media made fun of Trump's many failings, the more comics and actors mocked Trump, it was all electing Trump in the process and demoralizing Clinton supporters at the same time. How could this buffoon even be in the running Clintonites thought, and yet the roots of their hubris lie in the fact they were so quick to judge, so quick to dismiss normal voters, that they did not attack the most important economic assumptions of Trump. 

Clintonites were too busy yelling “Racist!”, “Hitler!”, “Sexist!”, and “Misogynist!” (why they would hurl this one for normal voters who probably don't know the definition, this by itself proves their disconnection). Some of these attacks didn't even make sense to Clinton supporters. The power of their attacks dropped as they repeated them. It made decided voters LESS likely to change their minds.  Doubling down on more baseless personal attacks made themselves worse off. It was like struggling with a boa constrictor; the more you writhe the more the coils expose your weaker spots and the deeper becomes the pull of death. The voters were angry at the elites, at the Clintons, at the Obamas, at the media so more proved detrimental.

The Clinton campaign was in a death spiral from May 2016 and no one was brave enough to warn the boss. All this loss proves is that if she can't even get this right, she wasn't a good candidate in the first place and the world is better off without her.

Add to that the appalling lack of integrity of pollsters to bias the very polls they were taking, and there was no way to realize how wrong the establishment was. The “hidden” Trump voters were in plain sight but tired of the mockery from media. They stayed silent or lied about their choice because the media were nonstop nonsense and voters were sick of intrusion and condescension.

This interpretation fits with Professor Norpoth's model that predicted Trump would win based on the primary results. The primaries are the biggest sample poll run before the election so therefore a better determinant than daily sub sub sampling. The radical difference in  Trump's versus Clinton's primary numbers were all that was needed to predict the outcome no matter what self-interested political people tell you. That was the indicator of new / returning voters that wanted change.

The only way to change the outcome was if +GovGaryJohnson would have made the debate stage. He would have sounded like a sane alternative to the two hated candidates and might have tipped the balance to a tie and into a Congress-determined Libertarian victory.

A Sociopath as President

So I've been AWOL from blogging as I explore Twitter as another media outlet one can use/abuse/misuse your time with. I find it hilarious that people follow you/ unfollow you based on one -often too short - 144 character idea. It is a demonstration of the fatuousness and shallow wisdom of the average person that can hear one unfavourable idea, not chew it over for the real deeper meaning, and reflect on the reality within which that idea was presented, and thus reject the speaker outright. When I read other people's ideas, the last thing I am is dismissive.  If you are that shallow, I can assure you any great thoughts you think you have are no deeper than a kiddie wading pool.

“Great minds think alike, small minds rarely differ”

On Twitter, as here, I have posited from a state of objectivity towards US presidential candidates my views on both Hillary Clinton@HillaryClinton and Donald J Drumpf /@realDonaldTrump . In each of them, I see a looming disaster for the rest of us on the planet. That disaster comes from the very nature of their sociopathy and their personal pre-emption to others' needs. They have no problem lying to get what they want, and they will sleep well at night whether they succeed or not. That is concerning.

If you want to understand what I find so alarming about both major candidates, read this

Andrew Newton's :Sociopaths – Ten Tell Tale Signs

and tell me if they aren't worrying.  I predicted Trump would win before +Dilbert Scott Adams  because I saw how effectively Trump cleaved workers from the status quo Democrats. He did his research- or had research done by smarter people - that exploited the FoxNewsTruthiness angst.

Even stalwart leftists like Michael Moore now see the writing on the wall:

Clinton has lost and doesn't even realize it. She is sleepwalking into disaster; assuming her massive self-worth is so redeeming that most dumb bastards will agree with her.

The main problems I see with Trump are: he is a thin-skinned reactionary that has been sheltered from real performance disaster by wilful better people so much that he overestimates his own worth. Trump would start a war he didn't prepare for and he wouldn't suffer the indignity of failure. Therein lies hubris.  Remember the fever to war in Iraq, remember the buyer's remorse and the disaster afterwards. Hysteria feels great, the consequences not so much. Many Trump supporters will rue the day.

The main problems I see with Hillary Clinton; she is a self-important amoral liar more obsessed with self-image so much that the taint of failure will be obliterated along with the poor hapless victims in the way. The cost to others may be incalculable but she is certain she won't bear it. Clinton supporters are blinded to what they accept along with the candidate. Clinton would use a war to avoid admitting she made a mistake. How the Clintons conned the Left I will never understand.

I can't help it, this is what I see when Clinton speaks:

Neither is a bright hope for change.

After many months, I would much rather see https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson @GovGaryJohnson as the president because I think he has the right mix of policies and sanity that won't make a bad situation worse. The USA needs to be a stabilizing force and not a destabilizer. 

Back to my main thesis;  I need to make clear that doesn't mean in total I don't agree with the idea of a sociopath being the president.  That's right, because I've lived in the real world long enough to know the job of a societal leader is to be willing to make choices no sane human being can make because the decision requires what is in the best interest of a wider need, the need of a people. Human emotions are the enemy of tough decisions. Sociopaths are free from that empathy that might distract and defeat a people.

I will give you an example I've used before of a president I admire greatly. I will introduce him by reputation first and then by name.
Here is an excerpt from his wikipedia page:

_____________'s main goals in office were to keep pressure on the Soviet Union and reduce federal deficits. In the first year of his presidency, he threatened the use of nuclear weapons in an effort to conclude the Korean War; his New Look policy of nuclear deterrence prioritized inexpensive nuclear weapons while reducing funding for conventional military forces. He ordered coups in Iran and Guatemala. _____________ gave major aid to help France in Vietnam. He gave strong financial support to the new nation of South Vietnam. Congress agreed to his request in 1955 for the Formosa Resolution, which obliged the U.S. to militarily support the pro-Western Republic of China in Taiwan and continue the isolation of the People's Republic of China.

It seems from first glance this was a bloodthirsty sort of man, a Dracula, willing to inflict the severest indignity upon defeated foes, that he would annihilate groups of men in a nuclear explosion as a "cheaper" way to avoid casualties. Intimidating enemies with assured destruction like hanging the severed heads and mutilated bodies as a warning to their kin of what horrors one finds when they enter this foreign dukedom. This leader seems a narcissistic despot, a Hitler-like vanity, slaying foes for the sake of his new Reich.


Take away the name from the strategy, history, and accomplishments and to any sane person it would appear the man at the centre (given that in 1955 a woman president was unthinkable) is true tyrannical villainy. I doubt you realized he warned people he was prepared to use nuclear weapons, but back in that day it was not seen as abhorrent conduct but a means to saving many soldiers' lives, and he was dedicated to that end with all he had done in WWII.

Eisenhower

I do not claim to know whether or not Eisenhower was a sociopathic type personality. I doubt it. I would extrapolate that as a soldier that knew and endured and regretted many unspeakable tragedies in pursuit of total victory in WWII Europe, he was made to act in this manner. He learned what wins in war. I like to think it was for him, like most soldiers, the pragmatism of utility hard learned in battle that makes one act as if incapable - to the outside world - of feeling for those that sacrifice. And those vanquished. A man capable of ordering good people to their death without concern and without regret. Order them to sacrifice one does in pursuit of society's goals. That cannot be indistinguishable - by deed alone - from any other single-minded sociopath.

And while Clinton and Trump have all the psychological traits that might make them practical stand-ins for the job, does anyone think they will be as great as an Eisenhower?

The fundamental difference between these two and Eisenhower comes down to a simple factor: Eisenhower was not in it for anything other than serving the people. His people. His stubborn ruthlessness in war was driven by his singular main purpose; to defeat enemies of American interests no matter what the cost.

But if either Trump or Clinton cannot rise to the level of an Eisenhower, then should you risk handing them the keys to the kingdom? Think of all the other ways they might wreak havoc amongst their own people?

The sane choice this election is https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson @GovGaryJohnson.

Classic passive-aggressive abuser tactics: Clinton takes role of the victim to attack Trump the same way

“I really deplore the tone of his campaign, the inflammatory rhetoric that he is using to divide people, and his going after groups of people with hateful, incendiary rhetoric,” the Democratic front-runner for president said in an interview with The Des Moines Register

Hillary Clinton, who lied about Trump being ISIS's best recruiting weapon, has now demonstrated she's just as nasty only in passive-aggressive form. She is using classic abuser tactics to seem like a helpless victim so you won't notice she's slinging as much mud as Trump.  These are deceptive oppressive tactics of a narcissistic superiority complex. She is just as divisive as Trump, only you are made to believe she's a helpless victim.

This is like the office nag that complains about the size of the cake piece you took, so no one notices she's got two end pieces...

Downfall of a political sociopath

Here's a politician that rode a 44 year political dynasty - his party was in power for 12 elections, a huge fund-raising machine, an array of high priced powerful people advising what the right moves were. He was up against 3 parties that were in disarray, underfunded, and written off by the media as unlikely to win.

UPDATE: How do I know Prentice was a sociopath? Once he lost he resigned from both leadership and his seat. He's now a private citizen. He won't even take the job he spent $14 million dollars on. That's selfish arrogance.

He had all the advantages one would hope for. But still, if you act like a sociopath - insult the people and their intelligence, act selfishly, lie to people about how well you're government's doing, and trivialize the people's concerns you will find out how unmerciful those same people will be.


Sounds like anyone else you know?

http://i.cbc.ca/1.3006341.1427150136!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/jim-prentice-progressive-conservative-party-leader.jpg