One Week From Now You’ll Know Trump Has Won. Here’s Exactly How and Why


A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post where I assert that there are many reasons Trump wins, maybe even in a landslide, and few that Hillary can even win at all. I suppose you think I’m coming back now to say “see?” in light of the polls tightening—as well as the recent blows taken by the Hillary campaign. Nope. I’d have the same position even if the polls were more strongly in Hillary’s favor.

I have been saying since 1992 that Hillary will never be president and I’m more sure now than ever. Since the very first Republican debate in August of 2015, I suspected Trump would capture the nomination. Not certain, but either him or Cruz. By January, I knew Trump would get the nod, and I knew he’d beat Hillary or Sanders…didn’t matter, but I was sure he’d beat Sanders way worse. I saw that it was 1980 all over again. I first mentioned that in February on Facebook. Only recently have I seen more mainstream commentators like Rush draw that comparison.

The polls are baloney. In other words, they’re always right, except when they aren’t. Too many times have they been unreliable, including in 1980 Reagan-Carter where polls showed Carter up by double digits shortly before the election, only to lose by massive landslide. …And you know what case particularly makes them unreliable? Volatile, visceral, stark-contrasts, such as Reagan-Carter and now, Trump-Clinton.

Moreover, it’s an odd way of looking at things in 2016. People with landlines who actually answer them. I haven’t answered anything but my cell phone in 15 years, and haven’t even had a landline for about the last 6 years. Who has, and answers landlines? AARP members…of the sort that never saw a ripoff of young people and young families for their benefit they didn’t like and feel entitled to. But I digress…

They’re also flawed for three primary reasons:

  1. They rely on “likely” voters, not people who actually for sure vote (more on that at the end of this post).
  2. The shifting of numbers seems to rely on a seemingly endless supply of “undecideds;” but in my opinion, “undecided” is more about whether they’ll vote or not, and not who they’ll actually vote for.
  3. People lie; or, to put it congenially, like to tell others what they sense others want to hear.

The bottom line is that owing to the Internet, there is now lots and lots of data available to gauge actual enthusiastic engagement, not just what someone happens to tell a stranger calling on the landline.

So let’s get down to the data points I’ve been looking at. My analysis and chewing never has anything to do with polls, and only marginally to do with all the various “looks bad” scandals on either side. I don’t think people care about the quotidian scandals, beyond whether they’ll get off their ass and vote, or not. I view polls as a starting hypothesis. It tells me what to analyze. It’s why I don’t give a hoot about the Libertarian or Green.

  1. Google Trends predicting a Trump win in exactly the same way they predicted Obama over McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Part 1. Part 2. What makes these even stronger than they appear is that if you drill into the search data, many of the top Hillary searches are for negative items like scandals and corruption; whereas, the negative searches for Trump show up way later in priority.
  2. Trump’s huge rally crowds vs. Hillary’s meager crowds (they’re even photoshopping them, now)
  3. Trump’s hugely greater social media following and engagement
  4. Trump’s internal polling, vastly skewed from MSM polling.
  5. CafePress sales for Hillary-bashing paraphernalia are 814% higher than sales for Trump-bashing stuff.
  6. Data gathering apps indicate yuge Trump win.
  7. Landslide Indicators. This covers items 2-6, above.
  8. Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University has a model he developed that has predicted the winner for 30 years, since 1984. Here’s a September article, and one from just a few days ago, Trump prediction unchanged.
  9. Halloween masks. Trump’s way outsold Hillary’s, which is a longtime flawless predictor. What I liked was that people who bought Hillary masks did so mostly to be scary, while those who bought Trump masks did so to be funny.

I myself have been lucky enough to call it since 1976 (I was 15) on my own visceral sense and gauge of general boredom with status-quo, enthusiasm for the candidates, general desire for change, etc. Meta-markers. I was really lucky in 1992 and 2000 when I just guessed correct (all other times I was sure).

In the former, because in spite of Clinton’s appeal, it’s an uphill battle to oust an incumbent (unless you’re Ronald Reagan, and the economy is complete crap, as in 1979-80). On the other hand, Bush senior was already the 3rd term of Republican incumbency following Reagan; and he was no Reagan in the minds of Republicans. In the latter case, Bush junior, while representing more of solid dude and and unlikely to be embroiled in bimbo eruptions for eight years, or an impeachment, nonetheless was just not very exciting. But Al Gore had “The Hillary Factor,” in that people like me can’t even stand to hear the guy talk. It was very close, and Gore actually won the popular. I call that one 50/50 for me.

What if there was a model that predicted the winner of the popular vote for more than 100 years (to 1912), with a single exception (Nixon-Kennedy, 1960)? Now, winner of the popular vote is not necessarily the winner of the presidency, but exceptions are rare, and it has to be a very tight race—and this is not likely to be.

Introducing professor Helmut Norpoth, PolySci, Stony Brook University. He developed this model, which he calls the Primary Model, that rather than using polling data—where people can say anything (like a dietary survey)—uses data from primary elections where people actually got off their asses and voted.

It has two basic elements:

  1. Which party is incumbent, and whether 1st or 2nd term (hard for the opposing party to oust 1st term incumbent—rarely happens—easy to switch parties after 2nd term—usually happens)
  2. How well the party nominee performed in their respective primaries against the next most competitive candidate

So, you can read about the generalities of the model here, and very much do read his entire discussion as to the specific prediction for the 2016 election. Here’s some elements you might find interesting.

  1. Trump beats Hillary by 87% likelihood. That was predicted March 7, 2016 and hasn’t changed.
  2. Had Sanders been the nominee, Trump would have beat him with 99% likelihood.
  3. Had Cruz been the nominee, he would have lost to Hillary, but beat Sanders.

Thank lucky stars that Cruz’s creepy weird-guy factor was just too much for most people.

Alright, I’m on the record.

Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. The cost of two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance the travel to write, photo, and film from interesting places and share the experiences with you.


  1. John on November 1, 2016 at 19:58

    Nice breakdown. I’ve been looking at some of the same indicators, and, for me at least, they confirm this visceral sense of what’s going to happen. I think it might be worth watching CNN next Tuesday, just to see the look on Wolf Blitzer’s stupid face.

    I’ve noticed something else, from the Los Angeles area- a distinct lack of any type of yard sign, in general. A few Hillary signs here and there, but very few. However, in places where there is no risk of retaliatory property damage (like the tops of buildings, balconies on second story apartments, or fences around empty lots), Trump signs popping up. And a few of the Hillary yard signs made me think they were part of the house’s Halloween decoration (one was placed right in front of a witch, the other behind a skeleton being attacked by a giant spider).

    Also, on Amazon, Hillary used to be the queen of the 3 star review, mainly because the reviews were split pretty evenly between 1 and 5 stars. Her most recent book, however, is currently has 87% of reviews at 1 star. All of Trump’s books are still 4 to 4.5 stars average.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 1, 2016 at 20:33

      Well, I considered adding my own anecdote, reflected by many friends and family.

      Lots of Trump yard signs. Have not seen a single Hillary.

      I have not seen a single Hillary bumper sticker. Rather, I see Obama stickers that have never been taken off. Unless you want your car keyed by a deplorable and irredeemable democrat, you would never put a Trump sticker on your car around here.

      Everybody ought ostracize every democrat they know.

      • Tim Steele on November 1, 2016 at 21:41

        What’s your prediction for California, specifically? CA seems to be a solid blue state, and nobody bothers campaigning there, it would be hilarious if Trump got CA’s 55 electoral votes.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 1, 2016 at 22:34

        Optimistically, CA 55-45, but more realistically, my fantasy for how the media blows up next Tuesday when they realize all the blue States they haven’t even realized are in play, are in play.

  2. Shameer Mulji on November 1, 2016 at 21:42

    As a Canadian, I can’t really vote but I do watch the election with interest. In my Twitter feed there’s a big support for Hillary if only because people feel Trump is a precursor to fascism. What are your thoughts on that?

    • Richard Nikoley on November 1, 2016 at 22:41

      America has been a fascist country for decades.

      Do you have any real idea of the concepts you vomit?

      Can you draw clear distinctions for me between communism, fascism, and socialism?

      • thhq1 on November 2, 2016 at 05:26

        Our younger daughter had a term of history in France. The US section emphasized KKK lynchings.

        Thye didn’t point out that the KKK and Jim Crow were inventions of the Democratic Party.

        And to be fair about it, I was surprised to hear the town band playing Sousa marches one night. It was VE Day, which they still celebrate in France.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 2, 2016 at 10:24

        In the early 90’s, teenagers even told me they are very aware what America did and that they will never forget it.

        Still almost makes a tear form.

      • Logo & Shibboleth on November 2, 2016 at 10:40

        Hillary’s slogan “Stronger Together” is literally taken from Fascists. Mussolini used it. Fasci (from the Latin word fascis, meaning “bundle”) is a bound bundle of wooden rods, sometimes including an axe with its blade emerging

      • tw on November 4, 2016 at 16:09

        Considering this country put a 40 odd year old child in office with character and experience as deep as a puddle of piss, nothing “we” think on the subject warrants attention.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 2, 2016 at 11:18

      It boggles my mind how much misunderstood fascism is, and how people toss around the term as though they think they know what it means.

      Fascism is a State-Private collaboration, with the state in control of quasi-private enterprise. In other words, America.

      • Daniel Bassett on November 15, 2016 at 02:19

        Hey Richard, Dan here from Darwin’s Table. So funny reading these comments post election. Was rooting for Trump all the way down here in New Zealand. Pretty much no one I know understands why I want him in. But mostly they just watch something on the news, or read a newspaper article, and then think they are ‘informed’. So it’s kind of awkward when you know they are looking at you thinking you’re an idiot, and in fact, you know exactly what they are thinking and really do know that they are either intellectually lazy, stupid, probably both.

        Also, I have lost 100 pounds and run a half marathon. I’d love the chance to email you about it, it’s been quite the learning experience.

      • Daniel Bassett on November 15, 2016 at 02:47

        Oh and my understanding of Fascism is that it is very open to people creating their own wealth, and pushes successful businesses etc in the same way capitalism does. The difference from what I have read is that Fascism will not allow a free for all, and will dictate what business is allowed to be conducted in the country and only those businesses that will benefit the people in some way are approved.

        Not sure if this is correct, but I am interested in it because I always here people calling people Fascists so went and read about it so I could get some idea of what the hell it actually is.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 15, 2016 at 08:51

        Wow Dan, that’s great. Email anytime.

        Yep, on fascism, it’s basically “private ownership” but under absolute state control.

    • Hardcoreconservative on November 3, 2016 at 20:14

      Living close to Canada in Upstate NY, if New York was divided from Albany into northern and Southern NY, northern NY would be a solid Red. Trump is the opposite of fascism, fascism is defined in Merriem Websters dictionary as “1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”
      In Trumps campaign it has nothing to do with race contrary to what many media outlets would try to have you believe, if you delve deeper into the web you will find that a great many people of varying races, beliefs and backgrounds support Trump. Trumps base isn’t old white guys, it’s disenfranchised Americans tired of OUR employees (politicians) running amuck at our expense(on both sides of the isle). I myself think Trump should have ran under a constitutionalist ticket but it was a better political move to go under the republican ticket, because when he defeated the business as usual life long politicians it sent a loud clear message that we have had enough. Law & Order, the constitution, and individual liberties are the basis for Trumps success thus far. If anything he’s closer to right center than far right, he supports many ideals that some would consider liberal. But at the end if the day we are all voting for the Supreme Court justices. In my humble opinion Trump will elect justices that will stand fast to the letter of law in the constitution, while a Clinton elected justice would have pre-biased leaning that don’t hold true to our founding fathers vision. I respect my Canadian neighbors to the north but our two political systems differ vastly and what works in Canada will not work in the United States.

  3. Martin Archer on November 2, 2016 at 12:40

    This looks like too-good-to-be-true wishful thinking, but oh, I hope it’s real:
    NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails

  4. Steven on November 1, 2016 at 23:24

    I liked Rand simply because of his father. After he was out I jumped on the Trump train. Way early. I was the first person I knew of that did.

    I am in San Diego and truth be told I’ve seen a couple bumper stickers for thecunt. That’s about it.

    I bought a Trump shirt the day I saw the videos of that lady get egged in the face at the Trump rally. I wear that baby to the Whole Foods and any runs I go to a coffee shop. I’ve been out with my girl friend wearing it as well. I have gotten more people happy with it than the other.

    I’m 6’2″ and in pretty good shape. I know that keeps people civil. The few looks of disgust are met with logical responses they can’t answer. I love befuddling them.

    As far as people that I call friends I have taken it upon myself to let them know that I absolutely will refuse to remain their friend if they vote for thecunt. It really shows their character that they are willing to overlook the perfidy and lies of thecunt and I personally will not have that.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 2, 2016 at 00:18

      Good for you.

      • Steven on November 2, 2016 at 11:56

        My sister wont talk to me now!! I am fine with that. She voted gay mulatto in 2008 to “stick to the white man”. She will most likely vote Trump this go but she does it on emotion and not reason. Which in all likely hood she will vote for some scum in the future.

        I told her that she and her husband can kiss my ass when I sent in my freedom tax. I did not have health insurance last year nor the years before and so far I have paid out an additional collective $10,000 for the joy of being a tax slave in America.

        Anyway, here is a fantastic twitter feed to follow.

  5. mel on November 1, 2016 at 23:54

    Putting it down for the record. I like it. You should call your blog or something ;)

    Now, if you’re wrong and Hilary does win, I propose that you go on a 22 (yes 1 more than 21) fast and give us daily updates of your bodily functions.

  6. Animal on November 2, 2016 at 00:10

    Will your upcoming Tribal Probiotic make me fart? I will be asking for my money back if it does not. They have to be hot and smelly.

  7. Bret on November 2, 2016 at 02:22

    That’s quite a case. I thought you were nuts on this subject a couple weeks ago. But now, I am convinced Hillary never had this in the bag.

    I really cannot wait to see both the media’s reaction and Hillary’s concession speech. I remember Rush Limbaugh babbling incoherently in despair the day after Obama was reelected. It’s CNN’s turn now, and the NYT, and so on. Just can’t wait.

    • Bret on November 2, 2016 at 02:42

      And WaPo, of course. Just ran across this little gem of relevant journalism: KKK’s official newspaper supports Donald Trump for president

      I’ve been seeing about a headline per day of this kind of patently biased trash in the MSM. Hard to tell if they are scared shitless or doubling down confidently. But I think the former.

      • thhq1 on November 2, 2016 at 05:29

        Nice to hear about that wing of the Democrats supporting Trump. Bill Clinton’s folks. The others should come around after they get their Obamacare premium notices.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 2, 2016 at 10:04

      Hey Bret.

      It mystifies me why the right day trades in the left’s stock market, i.e., election polling.

      Astute traders know that in trading, you certainly can day-trade the news, but it’s a lot of work and all you are doing is trying to be a bit smarter than other people day-trading news rather than trading on fundamentals and discounting the ups and downs of news.

      • Bret on November 2, 2016 at 12:38

        I have to admit, I fell for John Stossel’s assertion that election betting odds are some kind of supreme, reliable crystal ball. The site he runs with Maxim Lott has shown HC ahead by miles for the past year.

        I saw someone mention this very site several weeks ago here, and you debunked it without blinking.

        I’ve obviously got a lot to learn still.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 4, 2016 at 13:39

        …Saw an article yesterday that at least on one trading site, 91% of new money bet is going for Trump.

  8. LaFrite on November 2, 2016 at 04:30

    Interesting website, not sure what to think of it yet, I did not have the time to dig it:


    Another thing further down about the FBI reopening the Clinton case (FBI vs NYPD).

  9. Jim on November 2, 2016 at 05:59

    I read your post about this a couple weeks ago and have been looking forward to the follow up. This did not disappoint.

    It’s hard for me to have too many positive anecdotes… I like in New Jersey, and I’m one of the few people I know who openly admits he’s voting for Trump. But a few weeks ago I was driving through Newtown PA and I was SHOCKED by how many Trump signs I saw on lawns. Easily 20:1 compared to Hillary signs.

    • Amy Louise on November 2, 2016 at 16:21

      If you’re in or near Middlesex or Mercer counties, you’re in lib central. Further up the Delaware in Warren county it’s nothing but Trump signs on every lawn.

      Mercer, Monmouth, full of rich white liberals who have tremendous guilt and a sense that the party can go on forevermore if they just stamp out injustice. Man I hated living with those people. I do miss Hoagie Haven, though.

  10. Doug on November 2, 2016 at 06:50

    How about election rigging- soros owned machines- concerns?

    • Richard Nikoley on November 2, 2016 at 10:37

      While I’m sure there could be plenty of voter irregularities in various precincts, I discount the likelihood of mass rigging as a secret too big to keep. Requires too many people.

      Even in the critical battleground states, those where it might make sense, seems pretty tough to me, very unsure, small potential upside with enormous risk.

  11. John on November 2, 2016 at 07:33

    Allan Lichtman’s model is pretty interesting, but after reading the article, it’s clear that he missed at least one key for Trump- number 8, Scandal! Has there been a year since 92 when the Clintons haven’t been embroiled in some sort of Scandal? Isn’t Hillary Clinton the first major party candidate to begin her candidacy with an active FBI investigation? If you just wanted to limit it to current active scandals, you’d still have your pick of her illegal server, Bengahzi, and the Clinton Foundation. How did he miss that?

    And he doesn’t think Trump is charismatic?

    I think cases could also be made for Social Unrest, and both the Long and Short Term Economy, but those aren’t nearly as clear as the fact that Hillary Clinton most certainly is tainted by scandal.

  12. Corey on November 2, 2016 at 13:13

    As for signage, I just made the drive from L.A. to Portland last week, and in Portland there are all kinds of Trump signs along Interstate 5, until you get into a major city (Eugene, Salem, Portland). All over rural Oregon. And I kid you not – I did not see a single Hillary sign along the entire 960 mile route. Too bad those metropolitan areas will swing the state in Hillary’s favor. No matter.

  13. Josephinehydehartley on November 2, 2016 at 15:07

    Even Billy Graham’s grand daughter told Fox News she’s unapologetically voting for Trump and urging Christians to do the same..not because she likes Trump, but because she likes the Supreme Court.

    Whatever the ways of working that have been going down between Clinton, the justice department,, her foundation and her private email server..they ‘ve obviously been exposed as wanting..probably prosecution.

  14. Doug on November 3, 2016 at 10:14

    Richard, I am still skeptical of a Trump win. I guess if democrats don’t get out the vote it could happen.

    I am still shocked how we don’t see ads like he will take away Medicare, school funding, school lunch or hates children, racist, homophobe…….

    Her ads are so stupid about this women stuff.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 3, 2016 at 10:37

      Would have happened even without these most recent revelations which simply count as insurance.

      The Democrats are not even believing their own bogus polling, now. And notice how focus has shifted from an absolute get out the vote to get out the female vote. Look up Pharrell’s pathetic plea. “She may be dishonest, but so are you.”

      This is a mega-trend and calling old people on landlines doesn’t even register in foreseeing it. You have no data. It’s bogus garbage being repeated by everyone because it’s what everyone does and even Fox is too entrenched to buck it. Polling is always right, except when it’s not.

      Brexit prefigures what’s going on. This will be far more clear.

  15. Jared on November 3, 2016 at 11:13

    It must be nice to be ignorant enough to be so sure of something that’s impossible to be sure of. Must be how the religious feel…

    • Richard Nikoley on November 3, 2016 at 11:14

      Hey Jared.

      “” completely explains your comment to me.

      • Jared on November 3, 2016 at 15:13

        And that analysis meets my expectations of simple-mindedness. Which you also seem to hold as a great virtue alongside ignorance…

        1. Google trends? Prove causation between voting for someone and searching for something.
        2. Just like Bernie’s turnout? Counter example offered..
        3. Again, prove causation between following on social media and voting for the politician.
        4. Is it news to you that Trump only surrounds himself with yes men?
        5. You mean the group riled up to bash is buying more bashing material lthan the one told “they go low…”
        6. ?
        7. I assume these are as thoroughly researched and considered as ypur other points.
        8. Statistical models often seem like magic to the ignorant. As someone who deals with much more sophisticated models daily, this point offers no more assurance than a poll.
        9. You can’t see why someone would rather dress up as Trump than Hillary?

        So how exactly do you think you can know this with certainty? Through prayer? You certainly didn’t think your way into this certainty… Polls have been the best, most well tested predictor of election results available to us. Your example from 1980 is bullshit, as I linked to you the last time you posted about it. The polls tracked that election quite well. But you choose to remain ignorant and selectively tout the errant poll that ‘proves’ what you’ve already decided.

        I have read your blog sporadically, and I would never have accused you of careful, measured thinking, so I don’t know why I’m expecting it from you now. I’m more entertained by watching a you flail around from opinion to opinion, rambling on without ever saying anything meaningful or intelligent, and the meeting any challenge with belligerance. It’s fascinating to me how well you prune your commenters into submissio:n The alpha idiot cares only to hear his own ideas echoed in others. I am actually impressed. I enjoy feeling how strongly you believe whatever it is you are strongly believing that day… So thanks for the fun and energy at least.

      • Bret on November 3, 2016 at 15:35

        “It’s fascinating to me how well you prune your commenters into submissio:n”

        It’s fascinating to me how passionately and at length you rebuke someone you supposedly think little of.

        You’ll have some bragging rights if HC wins on Tuesday. If not, I’ll be sure to bump this comment back up so I can point and laugh at you. You’ll slink into silence like a coward, assuring yourself that it doesn’t bother you.

      • thhq1 on November 3, 2016 at 16:08

        Being a pundit means never having to say you’re sorry.

      • thhq1 on November 3, 2016 at 16:24

        Outcomes are what interest me at this point.

        If it’s Hillary I expect more Obama with some reduction in deficit spending. Nothing will happen very fast, like pouring cold molasses. None of the new entitlements will fly without Congress agreeing. I don’t expect as much modification to Obamacare as Rubio’s risk corridor stroke of genius, but it will get tweaked enough so that it doesn’t just outright collapse. Arrogance can get you elected, but nothing will get done without quid pro quo….the old Bill Clinton way….Ryan is the new Newt. And just to twit Trump and the Russians I expect her to build a small, ineffective wall somewhere….maybe in Berlin or Mosul or on the outskirts of Aleppo…

        If it’s Trump I expect a whole lot more getting done immediately, starting with no more obamacare, about 1000 executive orders gone, and income tax reductions. More deficit not less for a while.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 3, 2016 at 21:32


        “Prove causation”

        You’re dismissed. You are too stupid for me. Or, a liar. Take you pick but either way, you’re dismissed.

        I have stated what I believe will be the outcome and why.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 3, 2016 at 21:52

        “Being a pundit means never having to say you’re sorry.”

        True in the concrete.

        In the abstract, also pretty true.

        A decent pundit or miscreant or mysanthrope is really only every focused on opportunities to show others how what they may believe is probably a function of them observing what others believe.

        One of my fav illustrations of this was in Rand’s The Fountainhead. Howard Roark had just built a new building and there was a reception with all the hoi paloi for its opening. Dominique walks up to Peter Keating (Rand’s “2nd hander” character) and asks what’s up.

        “I was just talking with the folks over there.” (artists, journalists, movers, shakers)

        “Why? So that you know what to think?”

        It’s wonderful that we have Peter “jared” Keating in comments, here. It is hilarious to me that he thinks that because he demands that I pet his brow and offer causal proof, that it’s not him that is not only deficient, but also a complete fucktard.

        He’ll know how fucking stupid he is by Tuesday night.

        Have patience.

      • Jared on November 3, 2016 at 23:56

        Being belligerent doesn’t make your points about Google trends and Halloween masks any less hollow. What’s the connect ion? What’s the causal action between the election and googling things? You’re putting things together without even making a plausible connection. Ive googled Trump several timea. Hillary even told me too. How does that cause me to vote for him?

      • Jared on November 4, 2016 at 09:13

        So your post that set out to show how a five point polling deficit is not as meaningful as a confusion of illogical, barely plausible examples is excusable because you’re just a pundit?

        I guess the takeaway for me is that a pundit doesn’t have to offer intelligent analysis, he just has to offer analysis that either through tone he makes sound authoritative or that is intelligent enough for his followers. Ive been following you for awhile Richard. I don’t come back for the analysis. I come back for the circus. Kind of how I would rather hear a Trump speech than any other candidate. It’s not that he’s saying anything intelligent, but how he’s saying it…

        Anyway, like I said last time, take a math class. Educate that ignorant brain of yours. As someone who does statistical studies as part of their career (ones you are very likely to have inconspicuously participated in), you don’t know what you’re talking about and your reasoning is illogical and lazy.

      • thhq1 on November 4, 2016 at 09:17

        My favorite pundit is in Naipaul’s A House for Mr. Biswas. He forces the young apprentice Biswas to eat bananas as a punishment for shitting on his banana tree. Biswas later in life blames this for his defective digestion.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 4, 2016 at 13:55

        “take a math class”

        My first year as an undergrad in 1980 was as a math major. Then spent another year as a CS major, then completed my BS in Business Admin in the final 2 1/2 years. I graduated with far more raw credit hours than required.

        Math courses included:

        – Calculus (3 courses)
        – Multi-Variable Calculus (1 course)
        – Differential Equations (1 course)
        – Vectors (1 course)
        – Statistics and Probability (2 courses)

        CS courses included:

        – BASIC (2 course)
        – PASCAL (1 course)
        – FORTRAN (2 courses)
        – Systems Admin (HP-3000 Mini Computer, 1 course)

        The Business Admin was a GENERAL course of study I was permitted to design myself and included courses in management, marketing, finance, accounting, quantitative methods, economics, and contract law.

        In addition to my major course of study in business, I fulfilled requirements for three minors: mathematics, computer science, and naval science.

        I used this as a generalist who draws from vast generalities to synthesize and connect dots, and get shit done, such as starting a company and designing and initially creating my own custom relational database as a CMS to manage the details of over 2,000 clients.

        I hire narrow specialists like you in order to do specific tasks like fetch my mail and take out my trash (or add some custom VB or C# coding to my database).

        You’re the classic case of the guy who’s overeducated himself into specialized dysfunction.

    • John on November 3, 2016 at 17:26

      Jared, I think you missed the point. I noticed the ONE thing you didn’t address was The Primary Model. That is truly a great predictor. After all, what better way to predict which way people will ACTUALLY vote, than by looking at recent data of how people ACTUALLY voted. Nothing is better than that- not phone calls, online polls, Halloween masks, Google trends, etc. It’s similar to the maxim in business- it’s cheaper and easier to sell to an existing customer than it is to find a new customer.

      Also, I don’t think your Bernie Sanders counter example is very strong. Sure, Clinton won the nomination, but she had all the Superdelegates from the start, plus 25 years of national fame. It was an uphill, and likely impossible, battle for Bernie from the start, yet he wasn’t mathematically eliminated from the race until the California primary. He still had a shot after Trump had vanquished his, what, 17 opponents?

      While you can nitpick any of Richard’s nine data points, it’s clear you aren’t looking at the big picture. Start with model that picks a candidate based on actual voters, like the Primary Model. Check that with Professor Lichtman’s model. Hey, it backs it up. Now check Google Trends, Social Media Engagement, Rally Sizes, Merchandise, and so on. Whoa, the prediction is just getting stronger. Okay, now look at the MSM polls. Hmmmm, doesn’t quite agree with the original prediction. At this point, you have the option of throwing out the entire hypothesis (that seemed pretty solid), or digging deeper into that particular data point, and see if there’s any issues with it.

      I also think it’s interesting to look at the year the Primary Model failed, 1960. That also happened to be the year a historic event happened after the primaries, the first televised debates. It therefore makes sense that the model might fail, cause it couldn’t take this into consideration. So it might be worth asking if any historic event have happened since the primaries. The only thing I can think of that qualifies is the recent Clinton FBI Investigation announcement. But if anything, that only makes the Primary Model prediction stronger.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 3, 2016 at 22:42

        John, you have wasted a lot of breath.

        You are dealing with someone at who very much takes pride in that.

        You have to dismiss and ostracize people like this. Literally nothing but destitution and starvation will ever change their minds.

        Trump can help with a reset, but we’ll be plagued with deplorable and irredeemable like this piece of shit, for life.

      • Jared on November 3, 2016 at 23:38

        Yes, the primary model is interesting but it isn’t magical. It’s merely describing things that have been correlated in the past. I take the point that those are actual voters but the choices in the primary are not the same choices in the general election. Nothing is perfect, especially when the polls tell otherwise. Which is the elephant in the room and would cast doubt in any THINKiNG man’s mind…

        Change my mind about what Richard? That I don’t know who will win the election but also know you don’t know either? Also why do you keep bringing up my email address Ad hominemly? Sorry I got my PhD from a State School and still use the email address as a junk account. What the fuck is your problem? You don’t converse with former Floridians? You would have been at home there were a lot of other unintelligent loud mouths quoting Ayn Rand there..

      • John on November 4, 2016 at 08:30

        Richard, good point about wasting my breath.

        However, I did just look up the 1960 election for my own benefit. I didn’t realize, or had forgotten, that the Popular vote was incredibly close in that election, with Kennedy only winning by 110,000 votes. Basically, 34.2 million to 34.1. Damn.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 4, 2016 at 09:45


        You are like the 5-yr-old child who has just been informed that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, cries, stomps feet, and demands proof.

        I state again: I have made a projection, stating what I believe will happen, and why. You are of course free to disregard or discount it.

        That you think I somehow care either way signals that you don’t want to hear it, which I also don’t give a runny shit about.

        For the final time, you are dismissed, with prejudice.

    • Mark J on November 8, 2016 at 22:29

      I just wanted to come back here on election night to say a big gigantic stinky FUCK YOU to the pompous Jared.

      And furthermore:


      • Bret on November 9, 2016 at 03:44

        I second that, Mark J. I promised Jared I would return to point and laugh if he was wrong, given what an indecent prick he was before.

        Got any more smug, self important quips, Jared? All ears.

  16. […] One Week From Now You’ll Know Trump Has Won. Here’s Exactly How and Why […]

  17. Jared on November 4, 2016 at 10:30

    What an analysis looks like that says you might be right, but an analysis that isn’t full of hand waving: there’s something actually compelling in the content–not the tone. And because he got to the point by thinking, there is no false assurance of any single outcome.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.