Posts

The NY Times’ Transparent (and Hypocritical) October Surprise of Trump’s Tax Returns

/0 Comments/in , /by

There’s only one news story popping up for the Sunday morning circus and it’s the long anticipated October surprise from The New York Times. Late Saturday evening they released a partial set of state tax documents belonging to Donald Trump which show a nearly one billion dollar business loss he took more than twenty years ago. As Business Insider explains, this factoid allows them to speculate that The Donald may have paid no federal taxes for nearly twenty years.

Donald Trump may have avoided paying federal income taxes for 18 years, according to tax records obtained by The New York Times and published on Saturday night.

The documents indicated that Trump declared a $916 million loss in 1995, providing him with a deduction so large it could have eliminated his obligation to legally pay annual federal taxes by up to $50 million for nearly two decades, tax experts told The Times.

The fire under all of this smoke is, of course, barely enough to light a cigar, but that’s not the point of the story. You’ll notice a constant set of phrases in all of the coverage of this “bombshell” release. They include things such as, might have and could have or may not have paid. That’s because the actual document only shows a massive loss which Trump claimed in 1995. What’s been established is that the loss in question opened the door to Trump potentially not owing any federal taxes over a considerable period of time because of the $916M loss. What’s also mentioned in decidedly muted tones is that if Trump wound up not owing any federal tax, that it was completely legal.

Let’s assume for a moment that Trump took full advantage of the tax laws in the way being described. (And frankly I’d start questioning his sanity if he didn’t.) This means that the Times has “caught” him following the tax code to pay the smallest amount of tax possible under the law. I mean, it’s not like anyone else does that, right? If Trump were A Good Person he would have massively overpaid his taxes and then we could all celebrate what a wonderful fellow he is, just like the people who handle the tax returns of the New York Times. Oh, wait… in 2014 the Gray Lady paid zero taxes and received millions in refunds despite having declared a substantial profit. (Read more from “The NY Times’ Transparent (and Hypocritical) October Surprise of Trump’s Tax Returns” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

AfterBern: Trump’s Socialist Policies Aren’t Working on the ‘Bernie or Bust’ Crowd

/0 Comments/in , /by

It’s been a few months since Hillary Clinton clinched the Democratic party nomination, and it might be high time for the Trump campaign to realize that trying to siphon off her former intraparty opponent’s supporters might be a fruitless endeavor to say the least.

On Thursday, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump once again attempted to court socialists on the campaign trail, saying that his economic policies should appeal to supporters of former Democrat candidate and unabashed ‘democratic’ socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. (F, 16%), making the latest in months-long string of appeals to bring the disaffected aboard the Trump train.

Trump has been trying to win over the ‘after Berners,’ disaffected Sanders supporters, for a few months now, but his approach recently has shifted from personality to policy.

Trump’s initial line of appeal to former Sanders supporters was based primarily off similarities on trade and their respective anti-establishment narratives.

In an April interview with Fortune magazine, Trump pointed to a short list of areas on which he and the socialist senator overlapped: “One thing we have in common is trade. We both know the US is getting ripped off by trade,” he said. “The difference is I can do something about it and he can’t.”

“We’re talking about free markets but the problem is, we’re open, but the rest of the world isn’t open,” he continued, further outlining the two’s similarities on issues of keeping corporations in the U.S. and their views of currency manipulation.

“The only way you’re going to get jobs back into this country is, number one, [China and Mexico] cannot devalue their currencies, which they’re killing us with. Number two—and very importantly—we’re going to have to use the threat of taxation in order to keep jobs here and also in order to get jobs back.”

In June, Trump said that he and his camp would welcome “Bernie or bust” voters who had “been left out in the cold” after Clinton’s primary victory “with open arms.”

The use of this common narrative of a “rigged system” common to supporters of both candidates would be bolstered a month later by foul play allegations at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, which was punctuated by the DNC email hack.

The thousands of leaked emails revealed a conspiratorial effort among party officials to sabotage Sanders’ underdog campaign during the primary, leading to the resignation of then-party chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, R-Fla. (F, 8%) and giving Trump another avenue to make his case to the former Sanders camp.

“The system’s rigged and [Wasserman Schultz] was rigging the system for Hillary,” said Trump at a rally in North Carolina, in the wake of the developments. He also made note of his and Sanders’ similar protectionist agendas on trade policy.

“[Sanders] and I are similar in trade,” he told the supporters. “The difference is I can do something about it. I’m going to bring jobs back to North Carolina … The trade agreements we have are one-sided agreements for other countries, and it’s disgraceful.”

In fact, for all of the first presidential debate’s bluster and personality squabbling, government-funded child care was one of the multiple policy points upon which Trump and Democrat Party nominee Hillary Clinton publicly agreed on stage.

Trump also made his case to Sanders’ supporters based on the Clinton campaign’s choice of Tim Kaine as running mate, due to the Virginia senator’s support for NAFTA and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership.

And Trump does have some of the shared policies to make the case. In addition to his anti-free-market stances on the minimum wage and international trade, Trump has also added Big Government child care to his portfolio of promises.

A few weeks ago, ostensibly at his daughter Ivanka’s behest, Trump rolled out a policy proposal that, among its other provisions, includes a socialist, taxpayer-funded maternity leave program.

Unfortunately for the Trump campaign, the months-long effort isn’t working at all. As it turns out, running to the left on economic policies isn’t buy the candidate the socialist defectors that they’d hoped for. Rather, what it actually appears to be doing is turning Republicans away from the free market.

According to August data analysis at FiveThirtyEight, most of those Bernie supporters ended up falling along the Democratic Party line. But, even if the remaining holdouts could all find their way to become nose-holders, they don’t have the numbers to do much for Trump anyway.

“The Sanders holdouts aren’t that large a group. If they were forced to choose only between Clinton and Trump, the vast majority would choose Clinton and yet they would add only about 1 percentage point to her overall margin over Trump, according to [August] polls,” explains FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten. “That could matter in a close election, but the election isn’t looking all that close at the moment.”

Some factors, however, have changed. Thanks to pneumonia-gate, ongoing email releases, and a list of other things working against Clinton, the polls have tightened, and — at the time of this writing — the RealClearPolitics spread has Clinton up a mere 2.9 points.

But still, it doesn’t look like Bernie holdouts are going to line up behind the New York billionaire anytime soon. If it hasn’t happened by this point, it’s probably not going to happen.

Meanwhile, the GOP candidate’s protectionist rhetoric and departure from free trade seems to brought an alarming number of Republicans along for the ride. A recent Politico-Harvard poll found that 85 percent of GOP voters believe that free trade policies have cost more jobs than they have created … contrasted against a mere 54 percent of Democrats.

But, who knows? This could really be the start of something. After all, if Donald Trump’s efforts could turn such a significant swath of the former free market, small government party against the concept of free trade, who knows what a majority of Republican voters will think about socialist maternity leave in a few weeks? (For more from the author of “AfterBern: Trump’s Socialist Policies Aren’t Working on the ‘Bernie or Bust’ Crowd” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Now Calls Debate ‘Rigged’ Due to Antagonistic Moderator

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the wake of extensive criticism of presidential debate moderator Lester Holt for aggressively confronting Republican candidate Donald Trump and lobbing softballs at Democrat Hillary Clinton, Trump is changing his verdict of how the debate was conducted.

“And then I had to put up with the anchor and fight the anchor all the time on everything I said. What a rigged deal,” Trump told a New Hampshire crowd Thursday.

“I tell you, we are in such a rigged — it is terrible. What’s going on in this country is so sad. But it will change. Remember Nov. 8th,” he added.

The word “rigged” has become part of the standard Trump campaign vocabulary. For example, elsewhere in his speech Monday, he noted, “The people getting rich off the rigged system are the people throwing their money at Hillary Clinton.

He also stated, “We are going to take on the special interests, the lobbyists, and the corrupt corporate media that have rigged the system against everyday Americans.”

When Trump finished Monday night’s debate, he had no complaints. He said Holt did a “great job” and the questions were “very fair.”

When reflection set in, and he could see the different ways the candidates were treated, he revised his opinion.

“When I first did it, I thought he was fine, I wasn’t thinking about it, but when I reviewed it and when I saw all of the commentary — because a lot of people thought he was terrible — and I looked at all of the commentary, I realized he was much, much tougher on me than he was on Hillary, it was like day and night,” Trump told Bill O’Reilly of Fox News Wednesday night.

“Nobody tuned in to hear what Lester Holt had to say,” said New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. “Nobody wants Lester Holt to be a fact-checker.”

Holt’s disparity in handling the candidates was also commented upon by Kelly Riddell in the Washington Times, who gave Holt an “F” for her performance.

“Mr. Trump got the most pointed questions all night, on racist stop-and-frisk, birtherism, his tax returns, Mrs. Clinton’s ‘stamina’ and being the first woman president. Mrs. Clinton’s email server? Not so much. FBI investigation? Nada. Pay for play allegations with the Clinton Foundation? Not worth it. Nearly all of Mr. Holt’s follow-up questions were directed at Mr. Trump, not Mrs. Clinton. Most of his interruptions were of Mr. Trump,” she wrote.

Clinton and Trump debate again Oct. 9, where ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper will moderate. The final debate is Oct. 19 and Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel will be the moderator. (For more from the author of “Trump Now Calls Debate ‘Rigged’ Due to Antagonistic Moderator” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Post Debate Memo to Donald Trump From a Never-Hillary Voter

/0 Comments/in , /by

Okay, Donald, you’re not going to like this. But if you wanted to hear from a yes-man, you would have let Christie out of the basement. So here’s the deal: We GOP voters didn’t overlook your long years of schmoozing with corrupt Democrats, your childish attacks on solid conservatives like Ted Cruz, and your cartoonish public persona, just to have you blow this thing in the home stretch. We nominated, for better or worse, a guy who body-slammed and head-shaved Vince McMahon in a wrestling ring on TV.

What we saw last night was more like George Pataki — nervous, defensive, wonkish, boring, and worried about your legacy. If you win this thing, you’re the president. You’ll have upended U.S. politics. If you lose, you have no legacy. You’ll be a cautionary tale, which the GOP establishment uses to nominate Paul Ryan next time. How’s that going to feel?

In last night’s debate, you started off strong, like an angry boxer blowing all his steam in the first three rounds. Then you let Hillary Clinton play you. She played you like a fiddle — no, I take that back. Sometimes we don’t mind hearing a fiddle. She played you like an accordion. Every time she pushed a button and squeezed, you made the exact wheezing sound that she wanted. And she leaned back and gave that same icy smile that psychologists painted on the wiry monkey mama. Please, for the love of everything that is decent, don’t hand our government to that woman.

Every time she attacked something that you hold dear, like your business acumen, you took the bait and swam right up to the surface where she could spear you. Only once or twice did you hit back effectively — for instance, when she pressed you on your tax returns and you came back and demanded her emails. But then you let it drop — an issue that ought to disqualify Clinton completely from serving as president. Then you actually let her bloviate about the importance of “cyber-security.” Even “little” Marco Rubio would have been pounding on the lectern at that point demanding:

How DARE you, of all people, even mention that! You broke the law, violated the rules, evaded government safeguards, and sent classified materials floating around the Internet — which who knows what countries are using to track down our friends and allies and murder them. Your underlings are all hiding behind immunity and the 5th Amendment, and you barely escaped being put into handcuffs and arrested — because you intentionally destroyed the evidence. You’re the Al Capone of foreign policy — except he got caught on a technicality, while you managed to skate. Maybe you had some friends at the Justice Department.

Why didn’t you point out that your tax returns don’t affect America’s security, did not result in dead Americans and launch a wave of dangerous Muslim immigrants, like her amateur-hour meddling in Libya? Then you could have reminded Americans how Hillary wants to increase the number of unvettable Muslim immigrants into America — like the Cascade Mall shooter from Turkey who is a Hillary supporter. Instead of thinking about reams of boring tax filings, Americans would have been wondering how many more pressure cooker bombers Hillary wants to resettle in their home towns.

You need to stop defending the honor of your hotel chains. Stop thundering like Ralph Kramden (of The Honeymooners) about how wonderful your temperament is. You stopped just short of saying something like “Bang, zoom, Alice — right to the moon!” Remember that in each of those arguments, Alice won.

Stop wandering into the weeds with references and names that only make sense to reporters but not to the public. That tells the media pros who have been targeting you since the convention that they’re getting inside your head. You had Hillary dead to rights on starting the ridiculous birther issue — but you squandered that moment by rattling off boring names and facts. John Kasich could have done that, if that was what we wanted — with more entertaining hand gestures.

Why didn’t you talk about the bribery and influence-peddling operation that is the Clinton Foundation, which sold access to the Department of State in return for secret donations from murderous governments like Saudi Arabia — which hatched most of the 9/11 hijackers, and beheads women and gays? Why didn’t you talk about the uranium deal with Russia that the government had turned down, and suddenly approved after the Russians made a big donation to Bill? How about Hillary’s right-hand woman, Huma Abedin, whose magazine tries to radicalize Muslims throughout the West, and published pieces blaming domestic abuse on women, and blaming the 9/11 attacks on American policies?

When Hillary accused you of stiffing building contractors, why didn’t you answer that she lied to the families of four Americans who died in Benghazi on her watch, blaming what she knew was an al Qaeda attack on a Coptic Christian’s Internet video?

More so than most politicians in the past 30 years, you know how to be funny. We didn’t see that last night. I was hoping that you’d interrupt Hillary’s blather about her father’s drapery business with a classic Trumpian zinger — for instance, “Where was your father on Nov. 23, 1963? I think America deserves to know.” The audience would have loved it, and it would actually have helped defuse some of the resentment which we Cruz voters still treasure despite his endorsement.

Instead, you seemed rattled and touchy. That’s not even the real you, most of the time. You are typically blithely, even blindly self-confident. It’s Hillary who’s the paranoid, secretive, misanthropic control freak. Americans need to see that, before it’s too late.

You need to hit Clinton hard, relentlessly hard, on her deep personal corruption and radical policies — which don’t even flow from conviction, but cold and soulless ambition. You can get away with hitting back at a mean girl — you’ve proven that. Those who despise you for being a bit of a cad are already Hillary stalwarts. Now the rest of us need to see you use that power for good, instead of … stupid. You’re Jimmy Cagney, facing Lady Macbeth, and you’re the one holding a grapefruit. We want to see you use it. (For more from the author of “Post Debate Memo to Donald Trump From a Never-Hillary Voter” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Priebus Still ‘Hopeful’ Bush 41, 43 Come on Board for Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said Monday that he’s “hopeful” former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush will be able to come around and support Donald Trump as the Republican presidential nominee.

“I’m hopeful that that is going to change soon,” Priebus told Laura Ingraham of the absence of any support from the Bush family. “I know that Bush 41 is very upset over what [Kathleen Hartington Kennedy] had said and is not happy.”

Kennedy claims that President George H.W. Bush told an audience in private that he was going to vote for Clinton, but Bush denied ever saying that. Priebus agreed he could clear it up by saying he’d vote for Trump, and downplayed the divide in the Republican Party.

“I think the divide is like … 90/10. It’s 88/12. It’s not much of a divide. We have a sliver that’s resistant, and I think if people are serious about getting our country in a place that has been a bunch of talk, but is actually some action, then they need to get on board and elect Donald Trump president. I think they’re getting — I think they’ll get there.” (Read more from “Priebus Still ‘Hopeful’ Bush 41, 43 Come on Board for Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Debate Audience Members Cheer Trump’s Terms for Releasing Tax Returns

/0 Comments/in , /by

Though moderator Lester Holt began Monday night’s presidential debate by asking the audience to remain quiet during the 90-minute event, one answer by Republican nominee Donald Trump prompted many in attendance to break that rule.

When Holt brought up Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns, the brash billionaire announced one condition under which he would defy his attorneys’ advice and hand over the financial documents.

“We have a situation in this country that has to be taken care of,” he said.

“I will release my tax returns against my lawyers’ wishes when [Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton] releases her 33,000 emails she deleted,” Trump added.

Trump’s reference to an ongoing scandal regarding the then-secretary of state’s use of a private email server to send and receive classified information prompted many in the audience to cheer loudly.

Before turning to Clinton for a rebuttal, Holt “admonished” those responsible for the interruption.

For her part, Trump’s rival floated a few theories she said would explain why the real estate mogul has kept his tax returns private.

“Maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is” or “as charitable as he claims to be,” Clinton speculated.

She also suggested Trump might also be trying to hide the fact that he does not pay federal taxes.

“He’s not all that enthusiastic about having the rest of our country see what the real reasons are,” she concluded, “because it must be something really important — even terrible — he’s trying to hide.” (For more from the author of “Debate Audience Members Cheer Trump’s Terms for Releasing Tax Returns” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump-Clinton I: What to Expect From the First Presidential Debate Showdown

/0 Comments/in , /by

The first presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton kicks off Monday evening, at 9 p.m. EST. It will last 90 minutes and take place at Hofstra University on Long Island. Over 100 million are expected to watch, close to Super Bowl level of viewership. This would make it the most-watched presidential debate in history, topping the 80 million who watched the lone presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Lester Holt, host of NBC’s Nightly News, is the moderator. According to New York voter registration records, he has been a Republican since 2003. He is also a Christian, but says as a journalist ” I jealously guard my personal opinion.” The topics are “America’s Direction,” “Achieving Prosperity” and “Securing America.” Holt will select the questions. It is a traditional debate format, with six 15-minute time segments, and each of the topics will take up two of the six time slots.

None of the third party candidates achieved the 15 percent required in polls in order to participate. There are six weeks left until the election, and early ballots are already being mailed out in parts of the country.

Presidential debates tend to be more about who can deliver the best zingers, since by this stage the candidates have made their positions widely known. But the slug fests still influence voters. “You can’t really win an election in a debate, but you can lose one,” Brett O’Donnell, a communications consultant with long experience coaching GOP presidential candidates, told The Washington Post.

Both Candidates Will Tone it Down

Trump is expected to continue his style as an entertainer, which works to his advantage since people find it appealing. He has plenty of experience doing live TV as the reality show host of The Apprentice. However, it could also work to his disadvantage. Trump has deliberately become more scripted giving speeches lately, using a teleprompter in order to circumvent his tendency to make reckless statements, but he won’t have that aid at the debate. Expect Clinton to take a few jabs at Trump specifically designed to entice him to say something careless.

Voters like Trump because he is an outsider inexperienced in politics, so he has the advantage of lower expectations. Clinton is widely considered the front runner, currently leading in most polls, so has more to lose with a poor performance.

Lacking energy lately from her health problems, Clinton will be trying to play it low-key and safe. Standing, doing battle for an intense 90 minutes with barely a break may prove difficult for her, and will look even worse if she has a coughing fit. In contrast, expect Trump to show off his mastery of one-liner counter punches, which he effectively used during the GOP primary debates to devastate his opponents.

Vulnerabilities

Clinton is vulnerable on the issue of her moral character and the chaos around the world from ISIS and terrorism. Trump told Fox News on Monday, “I can talk about her deleting emails after she gets a subpoena from Congress and lots of other things. I can talk about her record, which is a disaster. I can talk about all she’s done to help ISIS become the terror that they’ve become, and I will be doing that.” Clinton will have difficulty separating herself from the spread of ISIS, due to her position as secretary of state from 2009 to early 2013 under President Obama.

Trump can also attack her for being part of the establishment and continuing to follow in Obama’s footsteps, taking the country further in the wrong direction. Clinton has lost her temper in public a few times recently when faced with criticism, so expect Trump to deliberately try to upset her.

Trump is vulnerable on his political inexperience, lacking years of developing public policy proposals. And, of course, there’s his mouth. The bombastic billionaire needs to look presidential and demonstrate that he has the temperament and maturity to hold the highest position in the country. Additionally, he has repeatedly been inconsistent with his previous statements on issues, and with fact-checkers closely analyzing his every word, he cannot risk many mistakes. A strategy Clinton has taken lately is using Trump’s own words against him.

The Experts Weigh in

Alex Conant, Marco Rubio’s spokesman during the primary, summarized in an interview with NPR what he expects to happen: “If Donald Trump can stand on the debate stage for two hours and not lose his temper and come across as a reasonable person, he’ll have a good night. If Hillary Clinton can stand on the debate stage and convince people that she’s not a liar, she’ll have a great night. But clearly, the former is easier than the latter.”

Joel Pollak of Breitbart warns of one disadvantage Trump faces, “[T]here is one larger reason that Clinton will win the first debate: the media will tell everyone she has won, regardless.”

Regardless of the media spin, Trump appears the favorite to prevail in the first debate. Unless he makes one or more large, glaring mistake, his charismatic, clever, energetic style should outmaneuver Clinton’s low-energy, defensive posturing.

The second debate will take place on October 9 at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and will be co-moderated by Anderson Cooper of CNN and Martha Raddatz of ABC. It will be a town hall meeting format, with half the questions coming from the audience of undecided voters. The third and final debate will be held October 19 at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas, moderated by Chris Wallace of Fox News. (For more from the author of “Trump-Clinton I: What to Expect From the First Presidential Debate Showdown” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former Bill Clinton Paramour Accepts Ringside Seat for Monday Night’s Presidential Debate

/0 Comments/in , /by

Whether Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump uses Monday night’s presidential debate to talk about the extramarital affairs of former President Bill Clinton remains uncertain in the days leading up to the Monday night debate.

However, the millions of viewers watching will be reminded of them, even if Trump never says a word.

Gennifer Flowers, with whom Bill Clinton had an affair he admitted to under oath, on Saturday tweeted that she will be accepting an invitation Trump issued her earlier in the day to have a front-row seat when Trump debates Democratic presidential nominee and former first lady Hillary Clinton.

“Hi Donald. You know I’m in your corner and will definitely be at the debate!,” read a tweet from what appears to be Flowers’s account.

The tweet came in the wake of a comment from Judy Stell, Flowers’s assistant, who told Buzzfeed that Flowers would attend.

“Ms. Flowers has agreed to join Donald at the debate,” she said.

Clinton, in fact, had started the ball rolling by inviting billionaire Mark Cuban to have a front-row seat for the debate. Cuban has relentlessly needled Trump throughout the general election campaign and derided Trump’s business success with a series of caustic interviews.

Cuban announced Thursday he has accepted the invitation.

Trump, a premier political counter-puncher trained in the art of one-upmanship by decades spent in the New York City corporate wars, responded on Saturday by mentioning Flowers.

In an October interview, Flowers spoke candidly about the past.

“You know, people criticize me for talking about her because I had an affair with her husband. And I don’t blame them for that,” she said.

But Hillary Clinton “never accepted her responsibility at being an enabler. She’s been an enabler that has encouraged him to go out and do whatever he does with women,” Flowers said.

“Women’s rights, ha”, she added. (For more from the author of “Former Bill Clinton Paramour Accepts Ringside Seat for Monday Night’s Presidential Debate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Are Polls Underestimating Trump’s True Support?

/0 Comments/in , /by

The press in 1980 did their best to scupper Ronald Reagan. They said he was an “extremist” and that he would “would divide America along racial, religious, and regional lines”. They said Reagan was a “dangerous cowboy” with his finger on the nuclear button. They seethed, raged, insinuated.

The Republican establishment joined in the calumnies. The strain on party brotherhood was so bad that after the primaries, one-time Republican candidate John Anderson split from the party and ran as a NeverReagan.

It was thus unfashionable to admit liking Reagan, and so not a few kept their mouths shut.

Presidential polls might have reflected this Reagan shyness. In the month before the election, polls had Carter up an average 44% to Reagan’s 40%. Anderson hovered around 9%, which left about 7% of voters unaccounted for. Were some of these 7% shy Reagan voters?

The final averages right before the election gave Reagan the edge, 47% to Carter’s 44% and Anderson’s 8%. That left only 1% unaccounted for.

The final tallies gave Reagan 51% of the popular vote, Carter 41%, and Anderson 7%, with the remaining 1% spread over novelty candidates.

There is a huge discrepancy here. Polls showed Reagan with 4% less support than he actually had, and Carter with 3% more and Anderson 1% more. These errors could have been caused by Reagan supporters unwilling to tell pollsters their true preference, but they also could have been because of built-in biases of the polls themselves. These biases should not surprise given that many polls are conducted or commissioned by mainstream media outlets, whose sins and biases do not need recounting.

Shy Trump Voters?

At this writing most polls show Hillary nearly tied with Trump, yet there is a suspicion that, like in 1980, some voters are shy about admitting that they like Trump. If this is so, the polls exaggerate Hillary’s true support.

Is anybody who is for Trump coy? If so, how many secret supporters are there? Or are the polls biased?

It’s easy to imagine scenarios where a pollster queries a citizen who is reluctant to say he’s voting for Trump. The college professor or student called on campus, an employee polled at any company in San Francisco or Los Angeles, a canvasser knocking at the door at a certain address in Chappaqua, New York when the lady of the house is in residence, and so on.

Hillary said half of Trump’s supporters are a “basket of deplorable.” Many on the left agree with these harsh words; deviation from leftist ideology is not countenanced.

So rather than trigger a social justice warrior by announcing their Trump preference, some surely keep their mouths shut.

On the other hand, as the election nears and, for instance, the NeverTrump camp realize how horrible the alternative is, and adding in the common knowledge that Americans like a winner, liking Trump grows easier. The polls, as in 1980, are tightening. Even so, there is still a sense polls under-count Trump’s true base.

Shy Brexit Voters

Disentangling voter shyness from poll biases is not easy. Modern polls over emotionally contentious questions suggest shyness is not negligible. Journalist Michael Tracey reminds us that six weeks before the Brexit vote, which the media and majority of the establishment hysterically disfavored, “Remain” led by 4% with “Undecideds” at 14%. But the final tally was 52% for “Leave,” a huge discrepancy and 8-point swing.

In the Brexit case, poll bias is not a likely explanation because Brexit polls were not sampled in the complex way presidential polls are. The results of the Brexit polls were also simple, in the sense that the numbers released were close to the actual numbers received in the polling process. By these comments I mean that the numbers released to the public in presidential polls are not in their raw form; they have been manipulated by various statistical models (this article explains how).

Scientific Polls? Nah

Now, despite what you might have heard, there is no such thing as a “scientific poll.” Or, rather, all polls are equally scientific. But not all polls are equally good. That public poll numbers are actually the result of statistical models means there is plenty of opportunity for bias and error to creep in.

This is well illustrated by no less than the New York Times, which recently gave four polling groups the same raw data. If polling were a rigid science, the answers should have been the same. But they weren’t. Results ran from Hillary +3 to Trump +1, a 4-point swing, a discrepancy more than large enough to change the outcome of the election (especially considering details about the Electoral College which needn’t detain us here).

There is also the possibility that some biases are intentional, as in so-called push polls, or because the samples are finagled in a preferred direction. Unscrupulous pollsters know that simply showing a candidate is ahead causes some people to favor that candidate (Americans like a winner). And if that candidate is shown to be well ahead of her true support, others will be discouraged from voting (why bother?). But surely the mainstream media would never lie to us, right?

Whatever the polls show, there is no certain way to say anything about their performance until after the election. See you on the other side. (For more from the author of “Are Polls Underestimating Trump’s True Support?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s What Mark Levin Thinks of Ted Cruz Endorsing Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Friday evening, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin commented on the big news of the day, Senator Ted Cruz’s endorsement of Donald Trump.

Levin read Cruz’s statement on the air along with the statement in response released by the Trump campaign.

Listen:

Levin offered a few comments, noting that he himself is voting for Donald Trump because he is the only candidate who can defeat the Democrat.

“I have no illusions about Donald Trump,” Levin said. “In many respects he’s a liberal, but he has some conservative positions. Some important conservative positions.”

Hilary Clinton, on the other hand, “she was Obama before Obama was Obama,” Levin remarked. “The only way to stop her, is with [Donald Trump].” (For more from the author of “Here’s What Mark Levin Thinks of Ted Cruz Endorsing Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.