Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Friday, February 7, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 450)

People's Pundit Daily (PPD) President Donald J. Trump Tracking Polls: Trump Job Approval Rating | Trump Favorability Ratings

President-elect Donald J. Trump is enjoying his highest favorable rating measured to date, crossing the 50-percent majority threshold for the first time. The PPD Poll, which conducted the most accurate surveys in 2016 on both the national and statewide level, finds 52% of likely voters now view the New York businessman favorably.

That’s up 4 points from the 48% measured last week and 11 points since Election Day on November 8, while the percentage of voters holding an unfavorable view of him has fallen by another 7 points to 39%. Last week, his unfavorable rating fell 9 points to 46% and precipitously from 55% since the night he defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton.

National polls conducted by People’s Pundit Daily last week showed President-elect Trump’s favorability ratings above water for the first time ever since the PPD Poll began tracking in early July.

The new results comes after President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence kicked off a “Thank You” tour across the Rust Belt, something no incoming president has ever done before. It began by celebrating a deal struck with the parent company of Carrier–United Technologies Corporation (NYSE:UTX)–to keep a plant and its workers in Indianapolis.

“While the Carrier deal has been a big boon to President-elect Donald Trump’s favorable/unfavorable numbers, they have actually been on the rise since he won the election,” says PPD’s polling head Richard Baris. “It’s normal for a newly-elected president to see a bump in popularity, but considering the size of the swing it’s still rather extraordinary.”

Throughout the campaign, PPD Polls repeatedly found voters had a more favorable image of Mr. Trump in the battleground states than voters nationwide. For example, in the final PPD Sunshine State Battleground Poll, 45% of Floridians had a favorable view of the then-Republican presidential candidate, while 52% had an unfavorable view of him.

As PPD outlined last week, the percentage of voters who previously reported they had an unfavorable view but now say they are either undecided or changed their minds is a strong sign Americans are willing to give the president-elect a chance. The change is no doubt due to the large percentage of voters who say they approve of the job he is doing during the transition.

On the question, “Do you approve or disapprove of how President-elect Donald J. Trump is handling the transition?” a whopping 56% still say they approve and only 38% still say they disapprove. That’s down from 41% who disapproved last week.

The PPD Poll follows level 1 AAPOR standards of disclosure and WAPOR/ESOMAR code of conduct. The survey was conducted from December 2 to December 7 and is based on 1532 interviews of likely voters participating in the PPD Internet Polling Panel.

President-elect Donald J. Trump is enjoying his

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a service at Great Faith Ministries International in Detroit, Sept. 3, 2016. (Photo: AP/Associated Press)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a service at Great Faith Ministries International in Detroit, Sept. 3, 2016. (Photo: AP/Associated Press)

DETROIT, Mich. – The same federal judge who Jill Stein got to mandate the Michigan recount did an about-face and ended it on Wednesday, backing a previous state court ruling. U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith agreed with a state appeals court that ordered the elections board to dismiss the recount petition because the Green Party candidate had no legal standing.

Stein, who finished fourth in Michigan with roughly 1% of the vote, didn’t have a chance of winning and thus wasn’t an “aggrieved” candidate, which state law requires for standing.

“Because there is no basis for this court to ignore the Michigan court’s ruling and make an independent judgment regarding what the Michigan Legislature intended by the term ‘aggrieved,’ plaintiffs have not shown an entitlement to a recount,” Goldsmith said.

Last week, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed an emergency motion with the state Supreme Court “to stop Jill Stein’s frivolous, expensive recount.” State Republican Party Chairman Ronna Romney McDaniel and AG Schuette called the ruling a victory for voters and taxpayers.

“Jill Stein, who received only 1.07% of the vote in Michigan, is not legally entitled to hijack the will of voters and drag them into an arduous and expensive publicity stunt,” Chairman McDaniel said in a statement.

The ruling makes President-elect Donald J. Trump the official victor over Democrat Hillary Clinton, making him officially the first Republican to carry the state since 1988. While the recount was intended to delay the certification of results so that they do not count when the Electoral College votes on December 19, the ruling effectively means the state’s 16 electoral votes are securing in Mr. Trump’s column.

Judge Goldsmith also said Stein’s legal team offered the court only “speculative claims” about voting machines, “not actual injury.” He also said a recount to test the integrity of the voting system “has never been endorsed by any court.”

But the recount process did uncover some irregularities, just not the kind Stein claimed. In Wayne County, a Democratic stronghold including Detroit, officials couldn’t match vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvas. The number of ballots in precinct poll records did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 392 of 662 precincts.

This would’ve likely excluded the county from producing anymore votes for Clinton, as Michigan state law prohibits precincts whose poll records don’t match with ballots from participating in recounts. The law is meant, among other things, to prevent ballot-stuffing, or the writing in of ballots belonging to voters who did not show up on Election Day.

Earlier Wednesday, the Michigan elections board voted by a 3 to 1 margin to end the recount if Judge Goldsmith reversed his earlier order.

Stein now is left with asking the Michigan Supreme Court to intervene, which is unlikely.

A court hearing will be held Friday on a possible recount in Pennsylvania, while the Wisconsin recount, which started last week but has not yet been completed, thus far resulted in an increase in Trump’s lead over Clinton.

The same federal judge who Jill Stein

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt arrives at Trump Tower in New York, Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2016. (Photo: AP)

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt arrives at Trump Tower in New York, Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2016. (Photo: AP)

President-elect Donald J. Trump will nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), People’s Pundit Daily confirmed. The decision to tap AG Pruitt is one that suggests the New York businessman intends to make good on his campaign promises to coal country and one that earned the president-elect approval from some of his most staunch critics during the Republican primary.

“The EPA’s reign of regulatory malpractice is coming to an end,” said Club for Growth president David McIntosh. “The nomination of Scott Pruitt is a brilliant move by the president-elect, and one that will reap benefits for the American economy.”

The Club for Growth has been a fierce advocate for free-market principles and opponent of burdensome, excessive regulations coming out of the EPA. Mr. Pruitt, 48, has been a critic of the “activist agenda” at the EPA. Since 2011, Mr. Pruitt has repeatedly filed suit against the EPA and joined with other Republican attorneys general in opposing the Clean Power Plan and Clean Water Act.

“Too often the EPA was the Obama Administration’s weapon of choice for crushing the private sector. We are confident that Scott Pruitt, who has done yeoman’s work in fighting EPA overreach, will restore the wise balance between necessary environmental protections and the operation of free-market industries that cause America to prosper.”

The Supreme Court agreed the EPA has acted outside their authority during the Obama administration in 2014 and again in 2015.

Regarding the latter, the Court ruled against the Obama administration, which sought to use the EPA to limit certain power plant emissions. The court said the agency “unreasonably” failed to consider the cost of the regulations that were allegedly aimed at curbing emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants. Writing for the majority, the late Justice Antonin Scalia said it was not “appropriate and necessary” for the administration and the EPA to regulate such emissions by imposing billions of dollars of economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.

“EPA must consider cost — including cost of compliance — before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary,” Justice Scalia wrote. “One would not say that it is even rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.”

Mr. Pruitt argued further regulations on carbon emissions violates state sovereignty, increases electricity rates and poses a threat to the reliability of the nation’s power grid to the point they “create economic havoc.”

But not everyone is happy with the selection, though it wasn’t as if President-elect Trump could ever please the environmental lobby. Public Citizen, what has been characterized as a radical leftwing green group, called Mr. Trump’s decision to tap Mr. Pruitt a “terrible choice.”

“Pruitt is cozy with the oil and gas industry and treats the EPA like an enemy,” the group said in a statement.

Nevertheless, President-elect Trump won the 2016 presidential election promising to put “America First” and that means focusing on burdensome regulations that stifle growth and destroy industries that support entire state economies, such as West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Business voices in his home state praised Mr. Pruitt and the decision to choose him as the next EPA administrator.

“Scott Pruitt is a businessman and public servant and understands the impact regulation and legislation have in the business world,” Jeffrey McDougall, chairman of the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association said. “His appointment will put rational and reasonable regulation at the forefront.”

President-elect Donald J. Trump will nominate Oklahoma

Frank Osysko waits at a slot machine before a rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Thursday, Jan. 21, 2016, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Isaac Brekken)

Frank Osysko waits at a slot machine before a rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Thursday, Jan. 21, 2016, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Isaac Brekken)

I have a very consistent view of victimless crimes.

  • I don’t approve of drugs and I’ve never used drugs, but I think the social harm of prohibition is greater than the social harm of legalization.
  • I don’t particularly like alcohol and I am almost a teetotaler, but I’m glad there’s now a consensus that the social harm of prohibition was greater than the social harm of legalization.
  • I don’t approve of prostitution and I’ve never consorted with a prostitute (other than the political ones in DC), but I think the social harm of prohibition is greater than the social harm of legalization.

Given these views, you won’t be surprised to also learn that I don’t care for gambling, but I think the social harm of prohibition is greater than the social harm of legalization.

The good news is that the nation is slowly but surely moving in the direction of legalization.

The bad news is that politicians doing the right thing in the worst possible way. Let’s look at three examples.

Our first wretched example is government-run lotteries, which are rip-off operations. In a genuine market, competition forces casinos to have reasonably decent odds. Yes, it’s set up so “the house” wins more often than it loses, but a casino probably pays out $90 for every $100 of bets. With lotteries, by contrast, governments rig the rules so that they pay out closer to $50 for every $100 of bets. Mafioso loansharks must be envious.

A second example is that politicians seem to view legalization merely as an opportunity for taxes, graft, featherbedding, and cronyism. Consider the case of Atlantic City, as explained by the Wall Street Journal.

In 1976 New Jersey voters approved a referendum that legalized gambling in Atlantic City. The constitutional amendment required casino revenues to fund programs for senior citizens and disabled residents, but politicians have instead funneled the cash to favored projects and businesses under the guise of promoting development. Guess how that’s turned out? A 1984 law required casinos to pay 2.5% of gaming revenues to the state or “reinvest” 1.25% in tax-exempt bonds issued by the state Casino Reinvestment Development Authority for state and community “projects that would not attract capital in normal market conditions.” Investment recipients have included Best of Bass Pro shop, Margaritaville and Healthplex. A decade later, state lawmakers imposed a $1.50 fee (which has since doubled) on casino parking spots to fund Atlantic City transportation, casino construction and a convention center. In 2004 lawmakers added a $3 surcharge for casino hotel stays to finance new hotel rooms and retail establishments, which had the effect of promoting unsustainable commercial and casino development. …Employment in Atlantic City has declined by about 10% over the last decade. Since 2010 the city’s property tax base has shrunk by two thirds. Local politicians raised property taxes by 50% between 2013 and 2014 to compensate for the dwindling tax base, but this has merely deterred new business investment and propelled flight. Meantime, local politicians have continued to spend… Between 2010 and 2014, expenditures increased by 10% while government debt doubled. The city government spends about $6,600 a year per resident—more than any other city in the state including Newark ($2,344). …Labor costs constitute about 70% of the budget. Earlier this year, the city emergency manager projected a $393 million cumulative deficit over the next five years absent reforms. …Democratic legislators and Governor Chris Christie passed a bailout that allows the city to squeeze an additional $120 million out of casinos in revenues annually to compensate for lower property-tax revenue. To sum up: New Jersey…plundered Atlantic City casinos, redistributed the spoils and loaded up the city with unaffordable levels of debt. The gambling mecca is a five-star example of failed liberal policies.

In other words, gambling did lead to addiction. Politicians got hooked on wasteful spending and haven’t been able to kick the habit.

Our final example is how politicians and established casinos are getting in bed together to prohibit competition from online gaming.

Andy Quinlan of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity is not impressed by this bit of cronyism.

Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has long sought federal legislation that would override the ability of state governments to set their own online gambling rules. Given his business activities, Adelson clearly has no moral objections to gambling itself. His goal is simply to undermine market competition and put alternatives to his Vegas casinos out of business, and he has spent millions on lobbyists to help make that happen. Adelson’s allies in Congress have tried repeatedly to pass the Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA), which would prevent states from authorizing online gambling within their own borders… Outside groups strongly warned against the consequences of undermining the 10th Amendment in the pursuit of crony capitalism. RAWA represents both a direct attack on personal liberty and a potential slippery slope in its erosion of federalist principles.

Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center also is disappointed with this odious bit of special-interest favoritism.

Adelson hates online gambling, as it competes with his bricks-and-mortar Las Vegas casinos for customers. More than five years ago, on what has become known to the poker world as Black Friday, the federal government unleashed a legal jihad against online poker companies and their top executives. Online poker is not itself illegal—a fact clarified by the DOJ’s reinterpretation of the Wire Act—but the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act made it illegal for payment processors to transfer funds to and from gambling sites. The problem for Adelson and his allies is that the UIGEA and other federal statutes apply only when state borders are crossed. The 10th Amendment and the principles of federalism mean that federal lawmakers should have no say regarding activities that take place entirely within one state’s borders. So if state governments wish to authorize online gambling for their citizens, they are and should remain free to do so.

Time for my two cents on the issue. Ideally, no government should have the power to tell gamblers whether they can engage in consensual transactions across state lines or even national borders.

But not only has that already happened, but we now have politicians and a cronyist conspiring to have the federal government interfere with states that want to allow online gambling inside state borders.

It will be interesting to see whether Republicans, now that they’re about to control Washington, will choose cronyism or competition, centralization or federalism (the Export-Import Bank is another test of GOP principles…or lack thereof).

Let’s put all this in context. Today’s topic is gambling and the cancerous effect of government intervention and favoritism in that sector. But the lesson we should learn is that cronyism is a bad idea, period. Cronyism is also bad in agriculture. It’s bad in finance. It’s bad in the tax code. It’s bad in energy. It’s bad everywhere.

To conclude, here’s an excellent video from Lean Liberty about the dangers of letting big business and big government rig the rules for the benefit of powerful insiders.

The social harm from a prohibition on

John Kelly Donald Trump prospective cabinet members at Trump International Golf Club, New Jersey, on Nov. 20, 2016 (Photo: AP)

John Kelly Donald Trump prospective cabinet members at Trump International Golf Club, New Jersey, on Nov. 20, 2016 (Photo: AP)

President-elect Donald J. Trump is expected to nominate retired U.S. Marine Gen. John Kelly for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Gen. Kelly, 66, who in 2012 succeeded General Douglas M. Fraser as commander of U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM). Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is likely to be tapped for deputy secretary, according to a top transition official familiar with the president-elect’s decision-making process.

Born May 11, 1950 and raised in Boston, Massachusetts, Gen. Kelly enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1970 and served as in an infantry company with the 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, He was initially discharged from active duty as a sergeant in 1972 and went on to graduate from the University of Massachusetts Boston in 1976 and was commissioned a second lieutenant after completing Officer Candidates School.

He served as the commanding general of the Multi-National Force West in Iraq from February 2008 to February 2009, and as the commander of Marine Forces Reserve and Marine Forces North in October 2009.

The appointment marks the third big military name to be appointed by President-elect Trump. Though reported last week, on Tuesday he officially announced he will nominate General James Mattis, a retired U.S. Marine Corps four-star general, to serve as Secretary of the United States Department of Defense.

“He is one of the most effective generals and extraordinary leaders of our time, who has committed his life to his love for our country,” President-elect Trump said in a statement. “General Mattis is the living embodiment of the Marine Corps motto, ‘Semper Fidelis,’ always faithful, and the American people are fortunate that a man of his character and integrity will now be the civilian leader atop the Department of Defense. Under his leadership, we will rebuild our military and alliances, destroy terrorists and face our enemies head on, and make America safe again.”

He also appointed Gen. Michael Flynn as national security advisor, a position that does not require Senate confirmation.

President-elect Donald J. Trump is expected to

Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein, center, takes questions from reporters during a campaign stop at Humanist Hall in Oakland, Calif. on Thursday, Oct. 6, 2016. (Photo: AP)

Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein, center, takes questions from reporters during a campaign stop at Humanist Hall in Oakland, Calif. on Thursday, Oct. 6, 2016. (Photo: AP)

The recounts requested by Green Party candidate Jill Stein designed to delay the certification of statewide results in Wisconsin and Michigan are backfiring. In Wisconsin, President-elect Donald J. Trump is expanding his lead over Hillary Clinton and, in Michigan, the inability to reconcile voting tallies revealed what is likely to be fraud in Democratic counties.

Officials have been counting votes in The Badger State since last Thursday, when Stein paid $3.5 million for the recount after alleging fraud with no evidence. As of Wednesday morning, 23 of the state’s 72 counties finished their recounts and President-elect Trump netted another 146 votes. In the completed counties, he gained 105 votes and Clinton lost 41 votes.

“We’re not finding any problems with the machines,” Reid Magney, a spokesperson for the Wisconsin Elections Commission, told FoxNews.com. “The Stein campaign wanted a recount because they thought there was some problems with our machines and that was not the case.”

The New York businessman and future president actually performed better in the recount in Democratic counties than previously reported.

In Green Lake County, a suburban and rural area roughly 100 miles northwest of Milwaukee, the recount showed Mr. Trump with 6,216 votes, up 3 from 6,213, while Mrs. Clinton lost 8 votes to end up with 2,993.

The Republican Party of Wisconsin also filed a FEC complaint last Wednesday alleging Stein is allowing her campaign to be used as a front for the Clinton campaign recount. Stein denied the allegations, of course, but even her own party is distancing themselves from her and her efforts.

“It is concerning that the Stein campaign would position itself to front and fund a recount attempt that only serves the interest of a desperate and defeated Clinton campaign,” the complaint stated. “Further, it is incredibly disturbing that given these asymmetrical interests, the Clinton campaign would readily begin organizing around the effort in order to capitalize on the chaos created by this attempt to undermine the integrity of Wisconsin’s elections process.”

The Wisconsin Republican Party argued Stein’s actions amount to a coordinated $3.5 million expenditure on behalf of the Clinton campaign, in excess of the $2,000 amount allowed by federal campaign donations laws. Stein, who has raised nearly $7 million (more than her entire campaign), also claims voting machines are illegal, something that has been laughed out of courtrooms.

The counties yet to complete their recounts have until December 12 to finish in order for the state of Wisconsin to certify its results by the following day. Stein and Clinton are hoping to delay states certifying their results so that they do count when the Electoral College votes on December 19. The president-elect initially won the state by 22,000 votes, the first Republican to do so since 1984.

“The overall results will not change,” Mr. Magney said. “It’s two votes here, two votes there.”

Meanwhile, in Michigan, the statewide hand recount of the 2.8 million ballots cast began on Monday, but is now on hold awaiting a hearing by a federal judge on Wednesday. The Stein-Clinton alliance had no choice but to ask a federal judge to order a recount after the Michigan appeals court ordered the state elections board to dismiss the recount petition. They found Stein had no standing and Clinton, who is not on the petition, is only using her as a front.

The state elections board also is meeting Wednesday. But the process has uncovered some irregularities, just not one that would likely benefit Mr. Trump. In Wayne County, a Democratic stronghold including Detroit, officials couldn’t match vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvas. The number of ballots in precinct poll records did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 392 of 662 precincts.

This would likely exclude the county from producing anymore votes for Clinton, as Michigan state law prohibits precincts whose poll records don’t match with ballots from participating in recounts. The law is meant, among other things, to prevent ballot-stuffing, or the writing in of ballots belonging to voters who did not show up on Election Day.

Last week, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed an emergency motion with the state Supreme Court “to stop Jill Stein’s frivolous, expensive recount.” The motion was an attempt to bypass the Court of Appeals and ensure the state does not forfeit its electoral votes in the Electoral College.

President-elect Trump won The Great Lakes State by roughly 10,700 votes, the first Republican to do so since 1988.

The recounts started by Green Party candidate

Tehran-Iran-burn-flags

Iranians burn the American and Israeli flags following the announcement of the negotiated nuclear agreement in Tehran. (Photo: Hamed Malekpour)

Lawmakers this week passed H.R. 6297, a 10-year extension of the Iran Sanctions Act that gives President-elect Donald J. Trump an “opportunity to evaluate” future policy toward the regime in Tehran. The White House indicated that it will sign the bipartisan bill, which they claim does not violate the Iran nuclear deal.

“As Tehran continues to sponsor terrorism, test-fire ballistic missiles, and violate the nuclear agreement, Congress must maintain the ability to immediately reinstate sanctions against Iran,” House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said in a statement after the passage of the Iran Sanctions Extension Act. “Now President-elect Trump will have the opportunity to evaluate our policy towards Iran independent of additional interference from the outgoing administration.”

The Senate last Thursday voted to extend the Iran Sanctions Act despite the Iranian leader telling his Parliament the Sunday before that President Obama is “obliged” to ensure the sanctions expire. Though Speaker Ryan is correct regarding the position the White House has taken on the bill, the president has yet to sign it.

Meanwhile, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani vowed Tuesday not to let President-elect Trump rip up the nuclear agreement that the U.S. signed with six other world powers. The New York businessman, who called the deal “catastrophic” on the campaign trail, has also vowed to renegotiate the deal, an agreement that only delays the immediate development of nuclear weapons in Iran.

“(Trump) wants to do many things, but none of his actions would affect us … Do you think the United States can rip up the JCPOA (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal)? Do you think we and our nation will let him do that?” Rouhani said in a speech at the University of Tehran. “Some man is elected in the U.S. whatever plans he has, it will be revealed later. Yes, he may desire many things. He may desire to weaken the nuclear deal. He may desire to rip up the deal. Do you suppose we will allow this?”

The deal, reached in July 2015, is the result of more than two years of negotiations–later revealed to have initially been secretive–between Iran, the U.S., China, Britain, France, Germany and Russia. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in Beijing Monday that all seven world powers “have the obligation to fully implement it.”

While Rouhani said there would be a “prompt response” if the sanctions were extended and Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi warned of a “firm and strong reaction,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest again repeated Monday that the president is under no such obligation.

In the House, the Iran Sanctions Extension Act passed by a vote of 419-1. The Senate passed an identical version of the legislation unanimously by a vote of 99-0.

Lawmakers this week passed a 10-year extension

An adorable child is held up before Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump attends a campaign rally in at the Florida State Fairgrounds in Tampa, Florida, on November 5, 2016. (Photo: REUTERS/Carlo Allegri)

An adorable child is held up before Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump attends a campaign rally in at the Florida State Fairgrounds in Tampa, Florida, on November 5, 2016. (Photo: REUTERS/Carlo Allegri)

The defeat of Democrat Hillary Clinton at the hands of President-elect Donald J. Trump in Florida was predictable and baked in long before Election Day. Yet, the same know-nothing pundits who were wrong on every level in 2016 and stubbornly ignored objective data are still trying to pretend they know what they are talking about.

An article on the Tampa Bay Times, which cites “new data” from a Democratic consultant firm, claims Clinton led President-elect Trump “by nearly 250,000 votes from people who voted by mail or in person prior to Election Day.”

“Trump just crushed Election Day,” Democratic consultant Steve Schale, who ran President Barack Obama’s 2008 Florida campaign told the Tampa Bay Times. “There is no other way to look at it.”

Ugh. Here we go again. There is another way to look at it–the right way.

Schale, who made wildly inaccurate bias claims disguised as analysis before he was proven wrong, leaves out a large part of the story in an effort to save his reputation. Before you get tempted into thinking his past experience in Florida equals expertise, I’d caution you to not underestimate how strong of a candidate President Obama was in both 2008 and 2012.

Mr. Obama won Florida, twice, not Mr. Schale. He probably could’ve done so with Big Bird running his campaign.

The assertion that Clinton’s loss “happened on Election Day” is misleading, simple-minded and simply inaccurate. As I warned readers repeatedly in the weeks leading up to November 8, and have in the past, analyzing the early vote can be “screwy” because it doesn’t tell us anything about voting preference, just voting behavior. The reasons why were laid out marvelously by Sean Trende at RCP, but it’s important to remember they are two different things.

What we can and did ascertain from the early vote was that Clinton was underperforming President Obama in the state of Florida and President-elect Trump was outperforming Gov. Mitt Romney. The claim that “Clinton’s early vote lead was about 66 percent bigger than President Barack Obama’s in 2012” is just flat-out wrong.

In 2012, after the final day of early voting, Republicans had cut Democrats’ aggregate lead from 8 points in 2008 to 4 points. In total, Republicans cast 79,000 more absentee ballots than Democrats, but trailed in the in-person early vote (EV) by 247,000. The combined advantage for Democrats was roughly 168,000 partisan ballots.

On November 6, as we demonstrated that day, Democrats had cast roughly 102,000 more in-person early vote ballots than Republicans, or 1,461,358 to 1,359,284, which was about 140,000 fewer ballots than they did in 2012. Meanwhile, Republicans cast roughly 70,000 more absentee ballots than Democrats, or 1,043,583 to 974,135, which was slightly fewer but still roughly on par.

Democrats were gearing up to head into Election Day 2016 with a combined advantage of just 32,000, but ended up expanded their early vote advantage by about 80,000, leaving them still down significantly from 168,000 in 2012. When analyzing the data against the results of the PPD Sunshine State Battleground Poll, which tracked the presidential election on a weekly basis, Clinton’s advantage was roughly 50% of the edge enjoyed by Mr. Obama in 2012.

“It was very clear that the Democrats were cannibalizing their Election Day vote,” GOP chairman Blaise Ingoglia, a state representative from Spring Hill told the Tampa Bay Times.

But it wasn’t at all clear to Schale, the media reports and other pollsters. Of course Mr. Trump won on Election Day. Republicans reliably vote in larger numbers on Election Day. But Clinton even squeezed more votes out of Broward County than President Obama did, though under more than a little suspicious conditions.

It just wasn’t ever going to be enough. FLASHBACK:

In fact, Clinton never led in the PPD Sunshine State Battleground Poll, which had President-elect Trump up in the state by 2 points on the final day released November 6. With the exception of a Bloomberg Poll taken a week prior, PPD was the only pollster that found Clinton behind and certainly the only one who told our readers Trump was not only going to carry the lower-propensity independent vote but voters that previously backed Mr. Obama.

Schale was given adequate information to know this, but just chose not to acknowledge it and, as a result, he suffered what could’ve been a career-ending professional embarrassment.

Exhibit A: The tweet from my election night teammate explaining why and how the remaining likely voter demographics favored President-elect Trump.

Greg–who talked me off the cliff when we first received the bogus exit polls indicating whites were 60% of the electorate–was right. The PPD Poll had estimated the electorate to be 66% white, on average. The data backed up our analysis, the PPD Sunshine State Battleground Poll and, consequently, reality. Schale chose to ignore it and he misled people. Now, he’s trying to do so again.

“Had the FBI director not chosen to insert himself into the campaign with a week to go, I suspect Clinton would have carried Pinellas (albeit very narrowly),” Schale “speculated” to TBT.

Again, this is speculation that we can say confidently is false. We know from our regional data analysis and polling that Clinton’s loss in Pinellas County was predictable weeks before and did not hinge on FBI Director James Comey. This is another widely cited post-mortem claim rooted in falsehoods, cooked up by failed political consultants and pushed by members of a party unwilling to acknowledge why they lost–badly.

I’d strongly suggest he and others in his position lose the hubris, stop peddling phony analysis in an attempt to save their reputation, and start putting together a plan to earn back the public trust. They can start by telling the whole story because, whether they like it nor not, we’re just not going to let Mr. Schale and others return to business as usual.

Hillary Clinton lost Florida and the 2016 presidential election not because some mysterious hidden force in the universe unexpectedly turned out more voters than was foreseeable before and on Election Day. She lost the election because she lost the argument. That happened way before Mr. Comey and certainly before November 8.

Anyone who followed PPD, unlike the rest of the world, wasn’t surprised on election night.

The defeat of Democrat Hillary Clinton at

President-elect Donald Trump, accompanied by SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, speaks to members of the media at Trump Tower in New York, Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016. (Photo: AP)

President-elect Donald Trump, accompanied by SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, speaks to members of the media at Trump Tower in New York, Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016. (Photo: AP)

SoftBank Group Corp. (TYO:9984) Chairman and Chief Executive Masayoshi Son pledged he would invest $50 billion in the U.S. and create 50,000 new jobs. The announcement Tuesday followed a 45-minute private meeting with President-elect Donald J. Trump, whom he said he likes him “very much.”

The Japanese billionaire, whose conglomerate controls Sprint Corp. (NYSE:S), announced his investment plans in the lobby of Trump Tower, though he didn’t provide details. The New York businessman took credit for the investment, claiming his election on November 8 was the catalyst for SoftBank’s decision.

Mr. Son later clarified and backed up President-elect Trump’s claim, stating the company would not have agreed to the investment had Democrat Hillary Clinton won the presidential election.

Mr. Son, 59, first planned to merge Sprint with T-Mobile US Inc. in order to challenge the growing market share of leaders AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE:VZ). However, regulators protecting special interest sent a message they would not allow the plan to move forward, even as AT&T expanded its empire. A new chairman will now be appointed to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) when the Trump administration takes the reigns in January.

In an interview, Mr. Son said the money will be coming from a $100 billion investment fund and other partners, known as the SoftBank Vision Fund. He also uses those funds to invest in the so-called Internet of Things, artificial intelligence and robotics.

SoftBank also intends to invest at least $25 billion more over the next five years in the fund, while Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund could potentially contribute an additional $45 billion over the same period.

At Trump Tower, SoftBank Group Corp. Chairman

trade-cargo-reuters

A Ferrari cargo crane moves shipping containing on a U.S. trade port. (Photo: Reuters)

The Commerce Department said Tuesday the U.S. trade deficit widened to $42.6 billion up $6.4 billion from $36.2 billion in September. The median economic forecast was looking for the deficit to increase to just $41.8 billion, but exports outpaced imports more than economists anticipated.

October exports were $186.4 billion, $3.4 billion less than September exports. October imports were $229.0 billion, $3.0 billion more than September imports.

While the trade deficit in September was revised down to $36.17 billion, the politically-sensitive deficits with China and Mexico came in at $28.9 billion and $5.8, respectively. The deficit with China widened by $2.0 billion to $28.9 billion, as exports increased by $0.5 billion to $10.6 billion while imports only gained $2.4 billion to $39.5 billion.

The remaining deficits were as follows: European Union ($12.9), Japan ($5.8), Germany ($4.7), India ($2.4), Italy ($2.2), OPEC ($2.1), Canada ($1.7), France ($1.6), South Korea ($1.4), Taiwan ($1.0), United Kingdom ($0.7), and Saudi Arabia ($0.2).

The balance with both Canada and the United Kingdom shifted from surpluses last month to deficits. With Canada, a $0.2 billion surplus in September turned into a deficit of $1.7 billion in October, while the United Kingdom shifted from a surplus of $0.9 billion in September to a deficit of $0.7 billion in October.

Exports to Canada decreased $0.9 billion to $22.0 billion but imports increased $1.0 billion to $23.6 billion. Exports with the United Kingdom fell by $1.0 billion to $4.3 billion but imports increased $0.6 billion to $5.0 billion.

The Commerce Department said on Tuesday the

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial