“Don’t buy a single vote more than necessary.
I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide.”
—Joseph P. Kennedy
While I doubt that any scientifically-oriented pollster has an algorithm to calculate the odds of so many major voting events resulting in virtual dead heats, I can assure you, the probability is almost zero.
Think about it.
This isn’t like a coin toss, where every toss has a 50-50 chance of coming up heads or tails. No matter how many heads come up in a row, the next toss will still have 50-50 odds of coming up heads or tails. That’s experimentally provable. Try it. I did. The more tosses, the closer the results conform to the 50-50 probability. In ten tosses, you might get 3 of one and 7 of the other, but in 1000 tosses, you can bet it’ll be very, very close to 500 heads and 500 tails. 50-50 results increase with the number of tosses!
Now we come to voting. Many fail to grasp that winning an election by, let’s say, 52-48% doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a true 4% difference. If side “A” had received just 2% fewer votes (50%), it would be a tie because that 2% likely would go to side “B,” resulting in “B” receiving 50% as well.
A 51-49% result would be even more likely a statistical tie given voting errors, counting irregularities, and plain ol’ fraud.
So how is it that so many elections result in a near tie? Think about the “Brexit” referendum. How plausible is it that the UK, with a voting age population over 50 million, is so evenly divided that, right down to the end, no one was able to accurately predict the result? How plausible is it that voters here in the US are so evenly divided? It is almost weirdly improbable. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen now and then. But with this frequency? Think of past elections you followed. Primaries. Referendum. Even weekly political polling defies probabilities!
Take the Clinton/Trump divide. With the number of people who hate Trump: “Never Trump” people, women against Trump, Hispanics against Trump, African-Americans against Trump, the media onslaught and all the rest, how is it that in poll after poll there is not even a 10% lead of the Clinton campaign? If you believe the media hype about how many voters claim to hate Trump, is this plausible? Mrs. Clinton ought to be leading Mr. Trump by 30+%! But if there is only a 6% lead for Mrs. Clinton, as polling averages seem to suggest, that’s just a 3% actual difference the Trump camp needs to make up. Well within the so-called polling margin of error.
Why are we not seeing true “landslide” victories? Where candidate “A” wins by a huge margin. Where a candidate takes 46 or more of the 50 States?
There’s something Twilight Zoney here. Skewed results? Skewed reporting? Cheating? Wishful thinking? Interviewees, for fear of seeming politically incorrect, reluctant to admit they actually like Trump? Or is it out-and-out fraud?
Fraud? One theory is that if polls showed one side or the other leading by 30% or more, voter passion would cool off pretty fast. Almost as fast as media ratings would plunge. Which means ad revenue would fall off as well. Nothing whips up passion and media ratings like a good, close, mud-slinging race like Clinton/Trump. Or like “Brexit” did. All commercial interests are happiest when the polls suggest a difference under 10%.
Knowing how easily it is done, do the media, polling organizations, fund raisers and the pundit class publish carefully manipulated polling data for their own benefit?
My grandparents, in the face of solid proof, still refused to believe that wrestling matches, “The $64,000 Question” and other contests, ball games, horse races, court trials, politics, and yes, elections, could be “fixed” or jury-rigged. Perhaps this is one reason I, on the other hand, have never been deluded by such Pollyannaish notions.
Posted by andyboy at 6/23/2016 11:43:00 PM
“I never made a mistake in my life;
at least, never one that I couldn't explain away afterwards.”
~ Rudyard Kipling
Anyone who has read my posts more than once or twice knows I am among the first to have championed Donald Trump for President (note the date, 2013). Now, I am very afraid our citizenry is about to make another terrible political mistake.
Four years ago, despite failure after failure of his policies and leadership, the electorate went for Barack Obama. Again. While Mitt Romney didn’t exactly lose in a landslide, he couldn’t get over the goal line in the end. His opponents, which included the supposedly neutral media, successfully attacked him for things which had nothing to do with his ability to lead the country out of the mire of debt and ineffectualness. He was relentlessly attacked over trivia such as his keeping a file of very qualified female job applicants (something which actually showed his support of intelligent women!) Never the less, they painted Mitt as a misogynist. The media’s Candy Crowley and her reprehensible behavior at the last debate was proof, and tantamount to an admission that the “neutral” media is always out to twist Republican voices.
Deja vu. Polls tell us the critical group of – let’s call them “moderate” American voters – seem once again to be swallowing the bunk, unable to get past Democratic/media talking points. They gleefully pile on Trump, painting him as “bad for women,” “anti-immigrant,” “intemperate,” “a bully,” “a charlatan,” and other accusations which are overly inflated, while his successes and proven strengths as a leader are worse than down-played... they are completely disregarded. Perhaps, as a direct consequence, polling shows Secretary Clinton currently in the lead.
Can these polls be relied upon? The same polls show President Obama’s “favorables” higher than 50%. Really? If voters feel positive toward the President, despite the seeds of division he has planted for seven-and-a-half years now, perhaps his favorable numbers are high because some pollsters have become part of the same liberal machine, now skewing the sampling of voters; or equally possible, Americans see some light at the end of this eight-year-long crooked tunnel. Perhaps America has had enough of the “fundamental change” President Obama promised them at the very beginning. That must be it. How else can you explain how someone who, by many analysts, has been called “the worst President in the history of the United States” (and that isn’t easy to do!) is still showing positive in the polls?
But think of this. If America elects another leftist, the Supreme Court will be tilted so far to the left that it may slide into the Potomac. Our military will be drained of funding, degrading it further, the welfare state will grow, plunging us deeper in debt, taxes will rise, the borders will remain porous, terrorism will not be confronted in a serious way, and America may be so denigraded that it may never recover.
Given the choice between stopping the further degradation of our nation, or voting for a man who the media has falsely (and knowingly) painting in the worst possible light... will America’s “moderates” see beyond the political cliches and well coordinated personal attacks directed at Donald Trump? Or will they once again be fooled; not caring about the health of the nation, or for the future of their children? Will America go right ahead and elect another Alinskyite with a long, public, leftist political history, someone under investigation by the Feds for multiple infractions of law? Someone who has built her campaign on a web of lies, someone supported by biased collaborators in liberal media/Hollywood. Someone with questionable sources of funding, much from foreign nations with terrible records of human rights, including the systematic abuse of the very group Secretary Clinton claims to champion – women!
Does this not disturb you? That with all the accomplished, hard-working women in their Party, the Democrats line up behind a proven truth-adverse candidate with no meaningful record of success? In fact, a record of abject failure! Someone who couldn’t beat an unaccomplished, openly socialist Senator without a jury-rigged primary system. Shouldn’t women voters be outraged at the attempt to bamboozle them with appeals of sisterhood solidarity?
I fear political correctness has so affected America’s eyesight that it cannot clearly see the implications. Their refusal to clearly see the devious diva may plunge us into another long, crooked tunnel. One with no light at the end.
Posted by andyboy at 6/17/2016 07:10:00 PM
The briar patch is where
Br’er Rabbit was raised.
He knows every branch and thorn in the thicket.
So if he convinces his enemy
that throwing him in the briars
is a way to hurt him,
his nasty enemy will do just that.
Br’er Rabbit will have tricked his enemy.
It appears, once again, Donald Trump has played Ms. Kelly like a squeaky violin.
His technique is entertaining, reminding us of the martial arts... using your opponent’s force against him... or in this case, her. The most recent example: Trump makes a comment about the judge presiding over the Trump U. case. Implying that Judge Curiel’s Mexican heritage and certain affiliations should have been enough for the judge to politely recuse himself at the start.
Oh my Lord! The violin’s shrillness was immediate. Ms. Kelly and her lot screech that Mr. Trump must be a terrible bigot. I have to admit I was taken aback at Ms. Kelly’s vitriol, making insistent demands on her favorite guests... “This is a racist statement... RIGHT!?” Chris Stirewalt and Brit Hume, among others, apparently giving up their right to their own opinion for fear of being thrown off her list of faves, helped Megyn throw Trump into the briar patch.
Ms. Kelly, who is often blinded by her background in the law, fails to grasp that “Mexican” is not a race. It’s a nationality. Even “La Raza” refers to the Hispanic people as a whole, not to any particular nationality. Trump wasn’t making a sweeping judgment about Mexicans or Mexico. He was declaring his opinion, right or wrong, about the handling of his legal case by one particular judge who, Trump believes, is not treating him fairly because of politics. Not being aware of all the circumstances, one certainly ought to wait before becoming hysterical with misdirected righteous indignation. Shouldn’t one, Megyn?
Donald Trump is usually the cleverest person in the room. The controversial bombs he drops are deliberately crafted to get the liberal mediots to throw him into the briar patch, calling him names and stirring up emotions. Donald knows more about the object of his bombs, which is usually more than the mediots do before they begin slinging mud at him. He knows they cannot resist throwing him into the briar patch.
When the media has tired itself with sufficient hysterics, once again, the special circumstances begin to emerge. The plot begins to turn... maybe the Donald is right. Again.
Will we hear a mea culpa from Ms. Megyn and her minions? Or will she flutter her eyelashes at Trump and beg him for another personal interview to improve her ratings, wherein she will once again tell us “It’s not about me” while it is all about her.
Posted by andyboy at 6/09/2016 05:40:00 PM