Nate Silver had Hillary Clinton’s odds of beating Bernie Sanders in Michigan at 99%.
That now sounds laughable but I sympathize somewhat. I too expected Clinton would win, but with nowhere near Silver’s degree of confidence.
The reason? Michigan is one of the states hardest hit by an exodus of manufacturing jobs.
Donald Trump came out strongly in favor of tariffs, isolation, and walls.
Like Trump and Sanders, Michigan sided with protectionism and isolation. That idea speaks volumes about the the remainder of the nomination process, and the election itself.
As I have stated for months, Silver desperately needs to update his thinking well beyond historical factors.
Florida provides a nice example, and one that is coming up.
Florida – March 6 – Nate Silver – Polls Only
Florida – Nate Silver – March 6 – Polls+
On March 6, there was a 20 percentage point difference between Silver’s forecast and what the polls said. Today Silver’s Polls+ number shows an 85% chance for Trump in Florida.
To be fair, there is a big number of new polls.
Yet, it also seems pretty clear Silver’s March 6 Polls+ number failed to take Michigan sympathies into consideration, Rubio’s miserable performances into consideration, and the surge of Cruz into consideration.
Silver sticks with a historic model best suited to one-on-one contests in normal elections.
The nomination process is not one-on-one, and this certainly is not a normal election.
Trump’s Clever Strategy
Instead of appealing to the base, Trump reached across partisan lines …
- To disenfranchised union workers
- To independents sick of war
- To those who blame migrant workers for stealing US citizen’s jobs
- To those sick of party politics
- To those tired of self-righteous religious zealots imposing their sense of morality on everyone else
- To those who distrust the Fed
- To those just fed up period!
- Trump appeals to all of the above while Ted Cruz only appeals to some of those in group 7.
- In regards to points 2 and 4, Cruz vs. Hillary is the epitome of Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee.
- In regards to point number 2, Trump is the clear choice. In regards to point 1, Trump is the clear choice. In regards to point 4, Trump is the clear choice.
- Hillary beats Cruz on points 1, 3, and 5.
On the above basis, I would expect Hillary to beat Cruz, but Trump to beat Hillary. That is precisely the opposite of mainstream Republican thinking.
This is not an endorsement of all of Trump’s policies. I am a staunch free-trade advocate. But even more so, I am an independent sick of war, and sick of the US meddling in other countries’ affairs.
That the Republican establishment has floated ideas about supporting Hillary over Trump says a lot about who really owns both parties: the industrial-military complex war machine.
If mainstream media would just stop and think, they would see the light. Don’t count on it. The military war machine plays mainstream media like a fiddle.
I originally said “Michigan results prove …”.
“Suggest” is a better way of phrasing things than “prove”.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Mainstream media is the bought and paid for media. Think about how much your blog pays you Mish. I think the MSM urinalists have to supplemen their income to pay New York type rents.
Nobody in urinalism rents type anymore. It’s all done on the internet.
Besides the influence of the military-industrial complex, the MSM has been biased in favor of the democrat party for a long time:
Trump is against bad trade deals (which imports inflation and pollution to other countries that use workers in unfair competitive environments. )That is:
-Slave labor(China, Bangladesh,India,Pakistan…)
-Cheap, unregulated labor(see above plus Mexico and South America and Vietnam and Romania and so on)
-Countries with no environmental controls(all of the above.)
I like clean air and clean water. The whole world should too, but we and Europe are at a disadvantage because we just import our filth to the above countries who have their citizens work for peanuts and in squalor.
Germany somehow manages to be a manufacturing country that can make profitable products using local factories and labor(some to Romania, Bulgaria and Eastern Bloc shitholes.)
I am guessing we don’t want be revert to a squalid shithole(like the 30s-70s), so we need to negotiate some rules of labor,environment so the playing field can be more level to global citizenship.)
He rails on sellouts like Boeing which wants to sell planes toChina and China insists on building them in China(and stealing the industry.) If I was the State Dept. I would designate Aerospace as protected industry and tell Boeing to not take the short-term profit(for CEOs) and longterm loss.
Currently, not only would an iPhone be $$ to make in US but it’s physically IMPOSSIBLE. We do not have the knowledge or technology to make a phone for less that 10,000 bucks.
So when Trump says we are stupid, we are REALLY STUPID
Cruz is a combination between a Trojan Horse and a Manchurian Candidate. He has totally reinvented himself after gaining inclusion into the Senate, but based upon his resume he in the consummate insider with ties to the criminal elite in government and on Wall Street. And, as an employee of GS and a member of the globalist CFR, his wife is no different
To be honest, I’ve not though much of the Dem ticket. The other side has been so awful that whoever wins for the Dems has to be better than the GOP ticket. In a sense, Trump is bad — he seems clueless on the issues and goes for the guts. On the other side I think Cruz is simply evil…I mean all his senate colleagues hate his guts.
I would rather characterise Clinton to a carbon copy of Obama. But you’ve got to give it to the GOP to have a “field of 17 exceptional individuals” running to be their standard bearer — and the last two standing are just about the worse (Carson was amazingly bad).
Carl R said:
There are many theories as to what happened in Michigan. A different point of view is that, since Hillary was a 20 point favorite, many Hillary supporters viewed Hillary as “safe”, so they voted on the Republican side for Trump, thinking that Trump will be easier to beat in the Fall. Are you right that Trump will do better, or are polls right that Cruz will do better? I have no idea. I only know that the voters will be different, since many Cruz supporters will not vote for Trump, and many Trump voters will not vote for Cruz.
99% or more of Republicans will Stay Republican
Independents and Reagan Democrats is the thing that really matters
Carl R. said:
It could happen that people will swallow hard and vote for someone they are not comfortable with, but there is certainly a precedent for believing that they might simply stay home, and not vote at all. It’s also a possibility that some of the more Libertarian Republicans will vote for Anderson. Personally I think that the last thing we need is an imperial president who will just “do” things, so there are certain candidates I would never vote for under any circumstances.
Oh, and I like your new website. It’s a big improvement.
Alex Spencer said:
Hillary for me is a no based on her total failure as Sec. of State. Trump seems ok – but I need a new roof installed and I’m sure I won’t find any middle aged true blue american citizens eager to put one on for what i want to pay. I need those immigrants. What about the Bernie Sanders option and assuming any of his more unusual ideas get locked up by congress.
” assuming any of his more unusual ideas get locked up by congress.”
That’s a big and dangerous assumption, Alex. Do you really think congress has been showing signs of intelligence?
I agree with an expert on the subject of (The Bern’s) socialism:
“The goal of socialism is communism” ~ V. Lenin
Alex Spencer said:
I agree – risky strategy but congress has been doing a superb job of “doing nothing” lately. Why would they change.
Tom K said:
You are putting to much faith in Silver. He just got lucky in 2008. His current polls show just how off he is and how lucky he got.
I also think insiders, unions and illegals helped Obama win in 2008, regular polls at that time would not have counted that fact. And Silver would have been wrong then as well.
People misunderstand statistics, especially in one-off situations. If I say something has a 5% chance of happening and it does, it doesn’t make me wrong; it means that based on the information at hand, I would expect that event would only happen 5 times out of 100 and this happened to be one of those 5. (Whether or not I’ve accounted for all relevant information is an open question – but presuming that’s happened, see the prior two sentences.)
That said, I agree with Mish – Silver’s models are assuming normality of some sort. 2016 is far from that, and thus his models aren’t as accurate. If anything, I think he’s been woefully slow in picking up known information and adapting it to forecasts because he’s still expecting that 2016 is going to behave like past election cycles.
The very clear warning that Sir James Goldsmith gave us on Charlie Rose’s November 11th, 1994 broadcast:
Time to watch it again.
“Free Trade” is BS.
Old Guy said:
Sir James Goldsmith was spot on I watched it in 1994. Too bad this man died. Anyone with half a brain would know shipping our manufacturing overseas to the lowest labor market does not create jobs in the USA. China is now losing jobs to Vietnam, Cambodia, and S. Korea. The labor there is cheaper then China and pollution regulations are non-existent. Large corporations are moving their operations there now. The TPP will further move jobs around the world as they seek even cheaper labor.
I would love to see Sir James spin on the TPP today and the monetization of debt. The man like George Carlin were way ahead of their time.
Hillary is hoping on the minority vote to put her in office. She has a rally here in Arkansas and held it in Pine Bluff. 98% black voters and if you look at the state she has won she has won because of this and stupid women thinking this is historic once again.
I think Bernie is going to surprise her in the North with the exception of New York.
The problem with so-called free trade is the other countries always seem to end up with an advantage over the US. Trump is correct that the deal negotiators for the US have been doing an abysmal job. It’s pretty pathetic that the other candidates don’t seem to realize that. The art of the negotiation is of primary importance.
The problem is those “negotiators” have been doing deals for themselves, not for the US people.
When they cut US workers they immediately boosted the bottom line of the companies in which they hold many shares. I saw this happen in many businesses whose annual reports I produced beginning in the 1980s. NAFTA made this a sure way to quick riches and created the 1% at the expense of our former middle class.
How is the US at a disadvantage with the current trade deficits. Currently the US exchanges paper money for foreign goods and services without detriment to the strength of the US dollar due to reserve currency status. This seems like a good deal for as long as it lasts. Once foreign countries stop accepting the US dollar as payment it is an entirely different situation but currently the trade deficits seem a good deal. Printed money for goods.
The trade deficit is evidence we are buying, but not selling.
The biggest disadvantage is they have our former well-paying jobs. Now US consumers are buying imported stuff with dollars we earn in service jobs here.
Sure, stuff at Walmart is cheaper, but it’s bought with Walmart low pay.
The best explanation of what has happened to our middle class…
Bobby Hill said:
Trump is not anti-interventionist, nor a peace candidate. Trade decreases war. They’re less likely to attack us if we owe them money. Trade wars lead to shooting wars. Likewise, nativism and nationalism lead to war by teaching that one group is entitled to rule by virtue of birthplace or ethnicity or religion.
Trump — a hidden looter– is the most unlibertarian candidate imaginable. Sanders — — an overt looter– even seems more respectful of individualism. Anybody but Trump.
Trump is certainly not the most unlibertarian candidate
The war mongers are
While trade wars may lead to wars (if Trump gets his way -which he may not)
War is War and the rest are guaranteed to deliver
Bobby Hill said:
Concededly, policy-wise, to the extent Trump evinces any preference, Trump is not less libertarian than Sanders, or HRC, or Cruz. My contention is that Trump is overall more un-libertarian then the others is that he exudes authoritarianism. To wit, see the real, snarling glee with which he ejected college student hecklers. The others would seek bad law and bad policy but essentially under the rule of law. Trump, however, might seek to dispense with the rule of law, already having threatened the Speaker of the House of Representatives that, “he’s going to have to pay a big price.” Separation of powers is a cornerstone of individual liberty in America. Nixon submitted to the Supreme Court when it ordered him to turn over tapes. Too easily, Trump can be envisioned telling the Supreme Court, “You’re fired,” and urging his supporters to take to the streets. Maybe I’d just leave if Trump turned dictator, except, as Ron Paul once cautioned, a border fence can be used to keep people in, not just out.
Against this worst authoritarian case, I’ll take my chances with the destructive, counterproductive economics of the Democrats, and the religious oppressiveness, and interventionism of certain Republicans alternatives.
I agree, that war and peace is paramount, but don’t see that Trump is less warlike, just because he sometimes, on a good day, opposes one or another intervention. Rand Paul (when he wasn’t himself pandering) was the answer, as you blogged; alas …
Reblogged this on John Barleycorn and commented:
Trump gaining steam
Billy Walrus said:
As a Trump supporter I am counting on him to completely embargo all goods from China and to build a wall with Mexico completely blocking the movement of goods and people with them. All that’s left are those Canadian bastards and we’ll get to them in due time!
If he embargoes all goods from China and Mexico, how am I going to replenish my “Trump Collection” wardrobe?
WHAT AM I GOING TO WEAR!!!!
Bobby Hill said:
Sorry to persist, but what part of official torture, and what part of collective punishment is peaceful? “Bombing the shit out of Iraqi oil fields”? Spending cuts except “not for the military, because the military we have to build up”? If he’s just pretending to be just another warmonger, well, he’s fooled me. Anybody but Trump.
No part of it.
I never said I liked Trump.In fact I have on many occasions specifically stated I don’t.
But Trump wants to mind our own business, talk with Russia, talk with Iran, bring our troops home etc.
He wants a balanced approach towards Israel.
The single best thing Obama did in 8 years was reach a deal with Iran. Cruz and Rubio want to undo that.
Hillary not only supported the Idiotic war in Iraq, she is largely behind the absolute disaster in Libya.
Just because I support someone on one issue does not mean I support them on all issues. Trump’s Tariff policy is ridiculous. But Just because president’s have a bunch of bad ideas does not mean they get passed.
The one thing presidents have proven the ability to do is wage war. Of the three candidates who can possibly win, Trump is the least war-mongering, by far.
That is without a doubt true, and it is my #1 priority. If Trump does not win the nomination, I will write in Rand Paul or vote Libertarian. But as long as there is clear “better” (not to be confused with good) choice, I will take it.
This is a hold-my-nose vote,. And it has the added advantage of sending a strong message to the nutcases running the Republican party that “the base drove the party into the ground”.
Many reasons to vote for Trump, and many reasons not to – except there are no reasons to vote for Hillary or Cruz.
Yes, Trump could backfire. The others are guaranteed to.
That is how I see it.
Stuki Moi said:
The (perhaps sole) Big Thing Cruz has going for him, is that he is a razor sharp aspie who has very strongly self identified with Originalism. Aside from waging war, picking Supreme Court nominees is what gives a President the most lasting influence.
While nothing is ever certain, especially with regards to politicians in high office, as a Supreme Court nominator, Cruz is far and away the most trustworthy of the quintet of “possibles”: Hillary, Bernie, Trump, Cruz himself and Bloomberg. (Amazing how far the GOP establishment has fallen, when neither Bush, nor Rubio with Bush’s votes, makes a possibles list broad enough to include not just a socialist, but even a guy not running….)
Without a doubt Trump, Sanders, and Cruz are the “FU” to the establishment candidates.
Bobby Hill said:
Thank you. I now better understand your reasoning. To your list of HRC’s history of belligerence, I’d add that HRC championed a “they crossed the red line” attack in Syria, and she almost got her way. Your points are well taken, as always. Yet I still see the magnitude of the downside, irrespective of its probability, as uniquely extreme with Trump.
Also, thank you for your commentary, which I’ve read and learned from regularly since before the financial crisis.
Back in 2008 the establishment in the CFR “promised” Hillary she would be the next POTUS, after Obama. They’re doing everything in their power to make that happen and, they won’t be denied, even if they have to rig the election. They’ll make it happen one way or another.