scratch-mark

Many Reasons Trump May Win By Landslide; Few That Hillary Can Even Win

Unlike the Main Pravda Media, I do not look at landline polls—nor the Main Pravda Media—so everything you are hearing and seeing is utter bullshit, contrived, and fraudulent in my view.

There is precedent. While I have completely called the winner of every single presidential election since Carter-Ford, 1976—when I was 15-yo—I have never said by how much. I even called both the CA recall of Davis, and huge win for Arnold in that same recall election. I never look at polls. I go by my own visceral sense which is informed by looking and reading around, all over.

Allow me to make an exception in this case, and give you what I think, number wise, in terms of data I’ve both looked at myself, and sourced from others:

  1. Trump gets 60% of the popular (but I think 65% more likely—and I even think CA could go for him, 55-45).
  2. Trump gets 40 of 52 States in the electoral college, or more. Maybe 42.

Why am I saying this?

Well, this is merely the tip of the iceberg. There’s much, much more:

ACTUARIAL REVIEW: Analysis of Recent Polls Shows Trump Win and Possible Landslide

A good example of the media trying to shape a vote was in 1980. In a Gallup poll released on October 26th in 1980, two weeks before the election, Jimmy Carter was leading Ronald Reagan 47 – 39.  Two weeks later Reagan won in such a landslide that Carter conceded before California was closed.

I’ve been writing the same thing, particularly on Facebook, since early last spring and have called it 1980 all over again—and for many of the same visceral reasons. This smells exactly like Reagan-Carter, to me.

More later. I really don’t want to give away all my tool bag, just yet. The real, reliable data is out there. You simply need to know where and how to look, and laugh at the idea of pollsters calling people on landlines.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

59 Comments

  1. Daniel F on October 19, 2016 at 07:10

    The one way Hillary can “win”: steal the election. The polls are rigged, and may then be used to justify a stolen election through the use of rigged voting machines.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 19, 2016 at 07:37

      I tend to think you could only get away with select cheating in select places where it’s going to be tight. No way you could overcome a 10% difference on a massive scale and it’s going to be more than that, on average.

      Probably not a big factor and there is already substantial oversight and even ongoing investigations. Doubt too many people want to risk jail time, because they’ll go after the little guys, not the arms-length Hillary campaign and DNC.

      When Trump says “rigged,” I think he mostly means in a metaphorical sense. The whole political machinery is against him, even lots in the RNC.



    • Daniel F on October 19, 2016 at 09:33

      It is true that the sheer lopsidedness of the media and establishment does make the election rigged. The system itself is rigged. As Pat Buchanan noted in a recent article, quoting (I hate to say it) Newt Gingrinch:

      ““without the unending one-sided assault of the news media, Trump would be beating Hillary by 15 points.”

      “On this one, Newt is right. Big Media is the power that sustains the forces of globalism against those of Americanism.”

      http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/is-the-system-rigged-you-betcha/#vr07W1StJwxQxSZL.99

      And, as Richard is implying, it may well end up that Trump _does_ beat her by 15 points.



    • Richard Nikoley on October 19, 2016 at 09:39

      Glad you brought up both Buchanan and Ginggrich.

      I used to loath both of these guys, but as O’Reilly said last night in commentary about his appearance on Colbert, “patience.”

      Buchanan has especially had a very good historical/geopolitical and etc. take on stuff as of late and I have enjoyed reading his spot-on pieces at LewRockwell.



  2. thhq on October 18, 2016 at 17:39

    Where is the outrage over 100,000 women dead in Aleppo? The ones that trusted in the line in the sand? The victims of the Obama/Clinton Arab Spring.

    The women offended by Trump are being compensated for their stories. They have been harmed. But the women of Aleppo cannot even tell their stories.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 18, 2016 at 17:47

      You’ve committed error #1.

      This is domestic race.



    • thhq on October 18, 2016 at 18:08

      This is her signature accomplishment Richard. But like Trump said, as Hillary recited her list, “You haven’t done anything.”

      I don’t buy the Alinsky argument. I don’t like the Marxist narrative because these aren’t Marxists. They’re pretend narcissist decadants who think they can talk the talk without walking the walk. The French have a term for their ilk – BoBo’s – bourgeois bohemians. Their talk fooled a lot of Arab separatists into thinking they would get more than words in the sand.



  3. Zach Bush on October 18, 2016 at 20:30

    Timely post. I was about to comment on one of your other articles to ask about this. Facebook is boring without you. Do you think there’s a market for an anti-PC Facebook?

    • forrest on October 18, 2016 at 20:53

      +1. Call it realfacebook. Get it to copy and feed everything from your original facebook, let it push content to your original facebook but let it hold content back for your other REALFACEBOOK friends. Real facebook is for your REAL friends. Richard, if you do this, I want in. I can pay for my share in sweat + cash.



    • Richard Nikoley on October 19, 2016 at 08:13

      Thanks for the vote of confidence, guys, but I’m content right now with what I’m up to.



    • William Strahan on October 18, 2016 at 21:38

      Inyourfacebook. Wouldn’t that be fun?



    • forrest on October 18, 2016 at 23:58

      Actually, how about a plug-in or app that posts to facebook in an encrypted ascii format and only your friends that you give the key to can read it? No? Make it so that any key will generate something semi legible and only the true key owners will know which of the decrypted messages is the right one. You could even give fake keys out to generate a false positive to hide the true intended post.



    • forrest on October 19, 2016 at 00:00

      If any key produces something legible who is to know the true key?



    • forrest on October 19, 2016 at 00:01

      Get that crazy virus software guy on yo it. McAfee.



  4. forrest on October 19, 2016 at 00:35

    Oh, btw. While you’ve been fixing the transmission on your beemer and making grilled cheese sandwiches, Jimmy Moore has been hitting the best seller lists with his latest book. Ka-ching!

    I reckon you have at least one more killer business idea in you yet Richard. You’ve done it before. Do it again.

  5. Ron on October 19, 2016 at 06:19

    Fox news says 75% of the people think we are headed in the wrong direction.

    If this is actually true, no way Hillary wins without massive fraud.

    I believe you are right Richard, she will lose.

  6. Jim on October 19, 2016 at 07:03

    I hope you’re right, Richard! Looking forward to another article about this.

  7. Redwine on October 19, 2016 at 07:55

    I think you’re right Richard … barring certain long tail events like Pence being the candidate or martial law.

  8. Hap on October 19, 2016 at 09:37

    Cheating and defending establishment interests has always happened in American politics. If it did not matter, it would not happen. But at least one side knows it matters and has worked diligently to perfect the means. (although I confess I don’t really know what “one side” means).

    Barack Obama has been so successful at dividing the country and kicking Socialism into high gear through deceit and fiat, the stakes have ratcheted up to where it seems a hairs breadth could make the difference. We probably have not seen this since the pre Civil War days.

    In this context the powerful forces unleashed by “rigging” as likely meant by Trump…..are relevant.

    The fact that I want to believe that Richard is correct in his analysis…ie that we are in for a real surprise to the upside…does not make it so. It would not even be worth it, should he be grossly incorrect, give him any shit about it. I still smart from the predictions of Dick Morris who claimed Romney would win. I kind of fell for it.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 19, 2016 at 09:43

      I never fall for Morris, and I was laughing my ass off at Karl Rove sitting at the table with his laptop during the 2012 election returns. “Just a minute.” “Just a minute.” “Any minute, now…”

      Hilarious.



    • Hap on October 19, 2016 at 10:43

      Morris has turned out to be a shmuck……it’s embarrassing.

      Rove went out on a limb, who knows why? Perhaps he read his own clippings…”the Architect”. Wasn’t that the name of the Omniscient entity in “Matrix”? Pretty high praise.



  9. Doug on October 19, 2016 at 10:08

    I hope you are right, because a Trump win would be spectacular to watch. Spectacular! Dems, Reps and most of the media will be aligned to bring him down. You can tell they HATE him already; he is not part of the club. His friends and relatives aren’t in the club.

    I remember when Jesse Ventura became governor in MN. He had some pretty good ideas like a flat rate for car registration, not such good ideas like light rail and did some side paid work like refereeing a wrestling match that angered a few. But eventually the Dems, Reps and media aligned to bring him down. He probably didn’t help his cause, but he wasn’t part of the club.

    Sadly, I think HC wins, because the machine that derives it’s livelihood from the state is vested in the known establishment….Trump is too much of an unknown to them.

    I am usually wrong.

    • Bret on October 20, 2016 at 02:35

      “Sadly, I think HC wins, because the machine that derives it’s livelihood from the state is vested in the known establishment….Trump is too much of an unknown to them.”

      Then how did Reagan win in 1980?

      With that said, I agree that HRC will win (it’s not even going to be close in terms of electoral votes). The Reagan comparison is tempting, but incongruous. Both men are relative political outsiders and speak with impressively unbridled confidence. But Americans have this annoying obsession with “presidential behavior.” Reagan embodied that ideal brilliantly. Trump fails it miserably. These recent scandals aren’t helping anything either.

      If I am wrong (have been wrong plenty of times before), I’ll enjoy a slice of humble pie and happily congratulate Richard on hitting a 40-year streak. But I don’t think that’ll be the case.



    • Doug on October 20, 2016 at 05:52

      “Then how did Reagan win in 1980?”

      That machine is heck of lot bigger today as a % and it’s growing. I was talking with my father last week about his social security and he said, “that is my money, I paid into the system.” Which I said was true, but that his physical dollars are now replaced with debt. My dad is now a ward of the state. His living is derived from government. So, if Trump makes any inkling of reform….the machine would pounce.

      Notice how democrats do not run campaigns on cutting things like defense. They need as many people in the pool as possible. They are more apt to run being against objects like guns…well Bernie did, and he was squashed.

      Democrats are very good at winning and maintaining power and they are getting better at it….sadly.



    • Richard Nikoley on October 20, 2016 at 07:15

      Game on, Bret!

      If Trump wins, can I get a ride in your C-130? 🙂



  10. Daniel F on October 19, 2016 at 10:14

    I have gained a lot of respect for Buchanan as I have gotten older. He was right about so much. Basically Trump is running on Buchananism with more testosterone and anger. It was through Buchanan that I first understood that the concept of the “proposition nation” is bunk.

    As for Gingrich, I consider him an opportunist and a highly unprincipled blowhard. He may be right in this instance, but he is not the caliber of a Buchanan by any means.

    • Hap on October 19, 2016 at 10:48

      I agree with you Daniel F….Trump is sort of like a more populist and less experienced Buchanan….without the strong traditional Catholic anti semitic prejudice.

      However, Trump is what we have and I support him.



    • Richard Nikoley on October 19, 2016 at 11:27

      Hap, what happened to Assange’s internet connection yesterday (just his personal, not WikiLeaks) is mere testament to the desperation of the left.

      See my latest post.

      If the polls were actually true, there would be zero cause to take any of these risks.

      Be smarter.



    • Hap on October 19, 2016 at 11:38

      I don’t think there are any risks to shutting down Assange, especially to the Hillary campaign. There are many other “actors” and we know from the Veritas videos that there is a “shadow” campaign.

      shutting Assange (not Wiki leaks itself and thanks for the correction) down is just sending a message.

      I have opined that it seems like desperation in the context of the “polling”…but it just could be an anal propensity for complete annihilation of anyone and everyone who might be or appear to be in opposition. Besides, what has Assange claimed that he concerned about….? Not the Swedes but the possibility of extradition to the US.

      Bradley Manning, although in jail, is a hero to the Left.



    • Richard Nikoley on October 19, 2016 at 12:22

      Just blogged the first two Veritas vids.

      Manning is a hero because she’s a girl, now. S/He knew his/her mark.



  11. Hap on October 19, 2016 at 10:38

    They are all opportunists….and in a sense, so are we. Opportunity in the general sense.

    Anyway, if you don’t think there are substantial forces tht support Hillary…arrayed against Trump, to the point of outright silencing any dissenting or informational voices with access, illegal or not, to private communications….then witness the war on wikileaks. Governments all of sudden cutting off one of the few sources we have that are willing to expose the workings of politicians and their enablers. Perhaps these leaks are without all the necessary context but the timing of the internet shutdown is more than suspicious. Do you think this would happen if all of it was about Trump? Not a fucking chance in hell.

    Wiki leaks, although Assange is a sketchy narcissist asshole, is performing a certain service to Truth.

    It would appear that Wiki leaks effectively silenced. We shall see. Unfortunately, many people do not care or even know about it. It seems a desperate act to shut them down now when it’s so obvious and most certainly when nobody can really wade through all the information and create 5 bulletpoints to counterattack Dem propaganda. “Rigged” is about a concise as it gets.

    • Daniel F on October 19, 2016 at 10:47

      “Assange is a sketchy narcissist asshole”

      I tend to think of him simply as “on the spectrum”, which can come off as assholish. Kind of a geek cluelessness.



    • Redwine on October 19, 2016 at 11:18

      The beauty of the web is that any entity properly and easily prepared cannot be sectioned out … the entire internet would need shutting down. A real possibility should the wheels come off this globalist juggernaut. The Wikileaks’s information is backed up in many locations and non-locations. The web is more efficient than the Gutenberg press innovation and even more damaging to the elites. I’m looking forward to the new Enlightenments.



    • Hap on October 19, 2016 at 11:27

      I “get” what you are saying and in principle appears correct. However, Do younot think that the USG has the resources, in and out of country to dog the wiki leaks folks trying to outpace any ability to reestabilish it’s distribution on line?

      Did the US not very recently “surrender” internet control to international? Maybe not everything?

      Wiki leaks is not Richard being thrown off FB or TW…..it is something they should have been prepared to counter quite easily….but maybe not?

      Again, the entirety may be moot since the American public is generally oblivious and the information is overwhelming. “Rigged”.



    • Richard Nikoley on October 19, 2016 at 12:06

      Well, this was the very original excitement over the internet in the mid-90s by libertarians and anarchists.

      The notion was that no single bread and butter power could ultimately shut off free distribution of info globally.

      Samizdat with a voice that can’t be silenced.

      It’s only now that’s being tested and sure as shit, that was correct.

      But leftists are so fucking fucktarded they will try, and ultimately expose their impotence, which is a good thing.



    • Redwine on October 19, 2016 at 12:06

      The information is available and the juggernaut is stumbling.



  12. Hap on October 19, 2016 at 10:49

    Daniel F

    Assange to me is not clueless…..just seeking power and influence by “alternate” means.

    • Daniel F on October 19, 2016 at 11:21

      I mean clueless in terms of EQ. He is obviously a very smart guy.



  13. […] Many Reasons Trump May Win By Landslide; Few That Hillary Can Even Win […]

    • Alex on October 20, 2016 at 11:00

      Richard, What do you think about the fact that betting sites strongly predict a Hillary win?



    • Richard Nikoley on October 20, 2016 at 12:06

      They are doing no such thing and it’s foolish to believe they’re any more predictive than the landscape of options or futures positions today on any given derivative or commodity predicts where the market will be in a month, a day or hours before expiration.



    • Richard Nikoley on October 20, 2016 at 12:10

      You know how smart options trading works?

      All of the best traders have many positions both ways, but because there is an endpoint, an expiration, they begin 2-3 months out and they place small bets bull or bear as time goes on. In the end, after all has expired and been accounted for, if the winning trades outstrip the losing trades by 2% or more, it’s a win. If you’re trading full time, that works out to a huge market beating 25% on the year.



    • Alex on October 20, 2016 at 14:54

      Option markets have far more variables and complexity than a winner take all choice between A or B. If the odds were closer than I’d agree with you. We’re not talking about 1.5 -1 or 2 -1. You need to put up $650 just to win $100 on a bet for Hillary. $100 to make $450 on Trump. Odds like these are indeed predictive. Of course nothing is a sure thing and I sure hope this is one of those rare times they are wrong.



    • Richard Nikoley on October 20, 2016 at 15:14

      How is it an A or B choice? Are you saying there’s no point spreads at all? Just a win or lose bet on either Hillary or Donald?

      Not saying I know how they make that market but I’m a bit familiar with sports betting and there’s generally a point spread involved, and it changes and payoff odds change as the money comes in, just like the price for a particular strike price on an option changes over time as a function of money coming into the market.

      I don’t regard this as predictive at all, but discounting.



    • Richard Nikoley on October 20, 2016 at 15:34

      Ok Alex, so you sent me digging into this a bit.

      I need to look more but yep, just as I suspected. It’s become its own self-confirming, discounting mechanism, much like a lot of the stock market operates, real time (except when it doesn’t and people start trading the news instead of fundamentals…or even technical chart analysis).

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/moneybox/2016/07/why_political_betting_markets_are_failing.html



    • Alex on October 20, 2016 at 18:49

      Interesting article but I wouldn’t assume It automatically applies here. It may apply to the election but then again it may not or it may apply only to a small extent. We wont know until after the election.
      With the stakes as high as they are It wouldn’t surprise me that these markets are manipulated. For all we know plans are in place to blame Russia for hacking and rigging the election results after Trump wins. Anything is possible with these maniacs in charge.
      All I’m saying is that the markets are still right far more than they’re wrong.



    • Richard Nikoley on October 20, 2016 at 20:24

      You didn’t understand.

      People are betting and discounting any potential falsification.

      This is exactly why Brexit was only 25% by the betting market.

      76% wrong.



    • Moando on October 23, 2016 at 05:20

      But they know the election is rigged with the Diebold machines are whatever other tricks the Clinton camp played over Bernie.



  14. Evan Eberhardt on October 20, 2016 at 07:44

    Not sure if yard signs indicate much, but back in 2008 here in Colorado, Obama shit was everywhere. Even here in Colorado Springs, which is pretty heavy Republican. This time around there isn’t a ton of Trump stuff but it is around (some of the bigger signs have popped up recently that go on busy street corners…of course some clueless dumbshit fascist changed one to ‘Chump’…hilarious, right?). However, for the evil hag, virtually nothing. I have seen 2 little yard signs and 4 of those stupid “H” with a sideways arrow bumper stickers. It’s weird. If she has support, it is not on display. Kind of the same for Trump, but not to the same extent by a sizable margin (or are the days of sings over now or something?). I hope it’s a tsunami like event quietly sneaking up on the leftists.

    The polls are bullshit. After one of them said Clinton won the second debate by something like 54-26%, I knew then and there they are skewed garbage. I also think many blacks might be predictably racist and not show up for the old white bitch, while others might actually vote Trump (in private) just to see what happens (and that alone would do her in if Trump even just gets Romney’s numbers).

  15. Steven on October 20, 2016 at 18:38

    The regressives better hope that Trump wins. For there sake. I have seen a lot of grumbling around, even in SoCal that if Trump loses blood will be spilled… Maybe not right away but it will happen.

    350 million guns in 100 million peoples hands.

    Once the fog begins to lift for only a handful of people it will cast a light for the rest of the humans to follow. Humans are predictable.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 20, 2016 at 20:00

      I’ve been saying for a while that there is historical prescedent.



  16. Jared on October 20, 2016 at 18:47

    That’s some clever reasoning. Keep up the thoughtful posts. I’m sure you’re right.

    http://themonkeycage.org/2012/08/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/

    You may want to go through this: https://www.udacity.com/course/intro-to-statistics–st101

    • Richard Nikoley on October 20, 2016 at 20:06

      Funny, I actually read that post earlier this afternoon via some Googling around.

      No, McCain, nor Romney never had the glitz against Obama. Trump has the glitz against Hillary.

      This is way more primal and visceral than people think. I laf, watching the news channels. How someone said this or that and how it moves polls.

      LOL bullshit.

      It’s all visceral and Trump wins that hands down, because the visceral on Hillary is loathing.



  17. Hap on October 21, 2016 at 12:23

    You should read Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin’s book on the crime of Reason. One false notion is that in the age of the internet and widely disseminated knowledge, there is a rise in reason based decisions under uncertainty.

    However, his theme is that we do not live in an age of knowledge. Yes there is some, but most, if it is really valuable (ie political or financial) , has to be kept close to the vest or it lies hidden in the evidence cemetery. The more we see on the internet, the noise increases non linearly. the signal gets drowned out, if there is one. The big mistake is that information theory clearly states that noise can easily be construed as a signal….because they look the same (random).

    All these bettors, oddsmakers, traders,….are just making another “market” that they believe (self confirmation) is fact/reason based (dot connecting). They throw out all sorts of shiny objects for you to wonder at while depriving you of your cash and your better sense (or maybe you never had any since highly educated).

    The chattering class just regurgitates on the various “knowledge” distribution channels.

  18. Hap on October 21, 2016 at 12:25

    But you are forgetting…….we can accurate predict the weather and sea height in 50 years!

  19. James on October 22, 2016 at 01:32

    What’s stopping you from putting up $200 for a return of $1000? Those are the odds you can find online.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 22, 2016 at 07:38

      Me?

      I’m out of the gambling business. The worst thing that could happen is I win. 😉



  20. […] 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…. I suppose you think I’m coming back now to say “see?” in light of the polls […]

  21. Richard Nikoley on November 1, 2016 at 18:47

    OK folks, here’s my “Definitive Guide” to the Trump win in exactly a week.

    https://freetheanimal.com/2016/11/youll-heres-exactly.html

Leave a Comment





YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780