On October 11, I penned Trump Destroyed Trump, Not the Media: “This Election is Over”.
I took a lot of flack for that post. Several readers emailed, asking me to reconsider my switch to Johnson. Many still think Trump has a chance. Some accused me of believing all the sex scandal accusations.
The latter group is wrong. I did not believe the accusations because I did not even see them. I tuned the election out after the first debate. I decided at that time Trump blew it, and I was mad as hell at Trump because he could have won.
Nearly another week has passed, and I stand by my assertion the “election is over”.
I still do not know what the accusations are. At this point it hardly matters.
However, I do have second thoughts about what the biggest protest vote is. Realistically, that’s all that remains for the “never Hillary” consortium.
Before we get to the protest vote decision, let’s take a peek at what Dilbert founder Scott Adams has to say about lies.
Lie Detection and Scandals
Please consider Lie Detection and Scandals by Scott Adams.
When Clinton’s surrogates respond to questions about Wikileaks by saying the Russians are behind it, that’s an acknowledgment of guilt. Guilty people almost always question the source of the information first. Innocent people start with a clear denial, or sometimes confusion as to why the question is being asked.
Some guilty people will give you a straight denial if they know the question is coming and they prepared for it. For example, Bill Clinton famously said of Monica Lewinsky, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” A firm denial from a prepared witness doesn’t mean anything. But a lack of denial, combined with questioning the source, is almost always a lie. Here’s the summary.
Did you commit the crime?
Liar: “Who told you that?”
Honest Person: “Hell no. I was at work. You can check.”
Prepared/coached Liar: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
Notice that you can’t always tell the difference between an honest answer and a well-coached liar. But the liar without good coaching is as obvious as a lighthouse. When Clinton surrogates redirect any question about Wikileaks to “Russia did it” they are confirming that they believe the content is real and damaging. They just don’t realize they are confirming it.
Now let’s talk about Trump. When Trump “categorically denies” the accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior, that form of an answer is common to both honest people and well-prepared liars. You can’t tell anything from Trump’s answer.
But Trump’s supporters and surrogates clearly believe Trump is guilty. You can tell by the precision of their answers. An honest opinion from a surrogate that Trump is totally innocent of all charges would look like this:
“None of it happened. It is all lies.”
Instead, you hear deceptive talk that fits these two forms:
1. “It can’t be a coincidence that everyone came forward at the same time.”
2. “Trump categorically denies the allegations and we take him at his word.”
The first response questions the source of the information, which I already taught you is a sign of deception.
The second response allows the surrogate to avoid giving an opinion on the facts and instead focus on their belief in the candidate. “Take him at his word” is code for “He’s on his own to defend the allegations. Keep me out of it.”
As regular readers know, I now endorse Gary Johnson because he only touches himself. But let me put some context on both the Wikileaks info and Trump’s alleged groping/kissing.
Adams provides examples of come-ons to billionaires and even famous people like himself. Adams says “I’m willing to bet that when Trump is alone with a woman, she often – but not always – sends signals of availability, whether she intends it or not. Her rational mind – and her words – might be giving a clear message of no while her eyes, body language, and other signals are responding to power the way humans have evolved to respond.”
Realistically speaking that’s what happened with Bill Clinton in the White House, Gary Hart with his “Monkey Business”, and Camelot president John F. Kennedy.
The difference is Bill Clinton and the beloved John F. Kennedy messed around while president. That’s worse. And Hart challenged the media while guilty. How stupid is that?
Adams goes on to say “I don’t excuse or condone anything Trump has allegedly done. That’s his problem. I’m just providing you with some context. In Trump’s billionaire world, women send mixed signals far more often than you probably imagine.”
That is my position as well. There are many things Trump has said or done that I do not condone.
I am also an equal party basher. I am interested in issues, not political parties. I supported Trump for three reasons:
- Trump is far less a war monger than Hillary
- Trump is an anti-establishment protest vote
- Trump was the best candidate meeting conditions 1 and 2 with a chance of winning.
Reason number three is gone. Trump has no realistic chance of winning.
Since I can never vote for Hillary, much like I could never vote for Obama, Bush, or McCain, I am left pondering the question “What is the biggest protest vote possible?”
In my state, Illinois, as in most states, there is no certain answer.
Perhaps a case can be made for sitting the election out. But I have never missed a presidential election since I was 18. And I will vote in this one.
I may switch back to Trump, or I may vote for Johnson.
Utah voters have a third choice.
Utah Poll: Independent Evan McMullin ties Trump
Fox News reports Utah Poll: Independent Evan McMullin Ties Trump.
The poll of likely voters, conducted Saturday and Sunday by Rasmussen Reports shows a sensational result in Utah, where two points separates the top three candidates. Donald Trump has 30%, conservative Evan McMullin has 29%, and Hillary Clinton has 28%. Gary Johnson has collapsed to 5%, with Stein at 1%.
If the 2016 Presidential Election were held today, would you vote for Republican Donald Trump, Democrat Hillary Clinton, Independent Conservative Evan McMullin, Libertarian Gary Johnson or Green Party candidate Jill Stein?
2% Some other candidate
4% Not sure
The margin of error was 4 points, putting all three leading candidates in a statistical tie. Gary Johnson collapsed from previous polls to just five percent.
Evan McMullin Could Win Utah and the Presidency
Nate Silver reports Evan McMullin Could Win Utah and the Presidency.
If Clinton doesn’t run away with this, there is another candidate who may also have seen his chances of becoming president skyrocket. The third-most likely person to be the next president of the United States: Evan McMullin.
It would take a fascinating scenario — in which much of the technical detail of how we select presidents comes into play — for McMullin to be sworn in as the 45th president, but the chances of its happening are slim, not none. Indeed, his chances of at least making things very interesting may be as high as 1 to 3 percent — about the same as the odds of the Cubs’ coming back to beat the Giants on Monday.
His path to the presidency basically looks like this:
- Win Utah
- Deadlock the Electoral College
- Win in the House
Point number 1 is realistically possible. And while a deadlock in the electoral college is highly unlikely, it is not impossible. Utah has 6 electoral college votes.
This takes us to step number 3. It would take a miracle, but it’s possible. Silver goes through all the contortions. Click on the link if you are interested.
Third Party Movement
Speaking as someone who generally dislikes both parties, I welcome a third party movement.
I am …
- An anti-war advocate
- A fiscal conservative
- A firm believer in small government
- A free trade advocate
- A huge believer in minding our own business internationally (think New Zealand)
- A social liberal who believes government does not belong in the bedroom
- A social liberal who believes in freedom of choice
I firmly believe a candidate with those views could win, but we cannot get such a candidate because Republicans will generally not go along with 1, 5, 6, and 7; and Democrats will not go along with 2 or 3.
No party is remotely fiscally conservative in practice. The Republicans had eight years to show fiscal restraint. They failed. Government expanded.
Obama promised “change you could believe in”. That was a great slogan but under Obama US drone policy expanded. We made a mess in Libya.
Interestingly, the slogan was arguably honest. Obama did not promise change, he promised a belief. People believed, but Obama delivered little changed except for Obamacare, and that was a massive mistake.
Several people asked me to reconsider my switch to Johnson. I have. The best protest vote in Utah is likely Evan McMullin.
For the rest of the country, the best protest vote may be Trump or Johnson. I do not know. It likely varies state by state. For example, Trump has no chance in California or in Illinois where I live.
I have been told “a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary”. That’s nonsense, but especially in Utah.
I would welcome a viable third party, which is why I switched to Johnson.
For those who dislike Hillary, my only suggestion at this juncture is to make the biggest anti-establishment protest vote you possibly can.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock