Politico out of the Gates to Get the 'We Saw It Coming First' Story of a Trump Win That Seemed Impossible

AP featured image
President Donald Trump arrives at a campaign rally, Saturday, Oct. 17, 2020, in Norton Shores, Mich. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

Since the first Presidential debate back on September 29, the country has been carpet-bombed with media reports, punditry, and polls telling us the race was over, Joe Biden had won, and the coming landslide victory was going to be a complete repudiation of “Trumpism” — whatever that is.


The victory was going to signal the return of the country to the path established by Barack Obama’s two terms as President, and lay the foundation for a takeover by the next generation of Democrat party leaders devoted to saving us from ourselves.

And then…  well, let’s just consider the lead-in to an article from Politico yesterday:

By almost every measure that political operatives, academics and handicappers use to forecast elections, the likely outcome is that Joe Biden will win the White House.

Yet two weeks before Election Day, the unfolding reality of 2020 is that it’s harder than ever to be sure. And Democrats are scrambling to account for the hidden variables that could still sink their nominee — or what you might call the known unknowns.

How about this obvious variable — Joe Biden has always been a terrible candidate.  He’s cognitively impaired for Pete’s sake.  The Democrat field in the primary was horrendous.  And the VP nominee is someone who didn’t even last long enough in the primary season to receive a single vote.  Yet Hiden/Barris have been protected by the media from EVERY POSSIBLE INQUIRY that could work to their disadvantage, while every comment of Pres. Trump is twisted and misrepresented by the media until it is unrecognizable.

It takes no great political genius to figure out that Joe Biden has never really been ahead in this race.  The only metric used by the media are media-crafted polls which have been inaccurate predictors of election outcomes for 30+ years — except when a Democrat politician wins.  In that case the polls are always correct.


When a Republican wins, lots of analysis, reflection, and navel-gazing is engaged in to identify just where the professionals made their errors.  When Pres. Trump beat Clinton four years ago, the post-election justification was all about undercounting the “deplorables” — white voters without college educations — and Clinton’s failure to inspire Black voters to turn out in the same manner as they had for Pres. Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Gee, who could have predicted that?  Certainly not pollsters I guess.

So what does today’s Politico offering signal? Well, that Pres. Trump might actually win (Ya think?), so there must be some “hidden” causes that are going to contribute to that outcome.

Republican registration has ticked up in key states at the same time Democratic field operations were in hibernation.

[Cleaning off computer screen of coffee, and wiping nose]

This “revelation” came to David Siders today??   Where’s he been since the summer?

There are more known unknowns than we’ve ever had at any point,” said Tom Bonier, CEO of the Democratic data firm TargetSmart. “The instruments we have to gauge this race, the polling, our predictive models … the problem is all those tools are built around quote-unquote normal elections. And this is anything but a normal election.”

Public polls are propaganda.  They are meant to shape public opinion and influence turnout.  They reflect NOTHING about reality. That is because the final polling results all depend on what “weight” the pollster gives to certain demographic components of the poll data, and the weighting drives the outcome in terms of the numbers.  The most common example, practiced for years by these sham pollsters, was simply including more Democrat voters in the final poll than historical analysis of voter turnout suggests will be the case.  So if historical analysis says Democrat registered voters will be 37% of the electorate, the pollster includes 41% in sampling.  He then does the opposite with GOP voters, and voila — you get the Democrat candidate with a lead in the race.


The polling showing a big Biden lead is intended to depress the vote for Pres. Trump.  The fact that no one in the media will even acknowledge this thought — I’m not asking them to embrace it — is part of the reason why no one should believe a single thing they write or say about the race.

Of all the reasons for Democrats to be uncertain, the most worrisome for the party is the one that — for now — is going very well for them: Turnout. More than 27 million people had already voted nationwide as of Sunday, some after standing in line for hours, according to data compiled by the United States Elections Project. In states that report returns by party, Democrats are returning more ballots than Republicans….

But political professionals don’t know how great an advantage Democrats will build in the early vote — or whether it will be enough to overcome the wave of votes that Republicans are expected to cast in person.

Flagging “clear warning signs” for Biden, one prominent strategist circulated a memo among Democrats earlier this month citing increasing registration of white, noncollege educated voters — President Donald Trump’s base demographic — in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. There is no precedent for Trump overcoming such a large polling deficit this close to the election, the strategist wrote. “And yet … ”

You mean the same reason Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania over Clinton in 2016 might still be the reason why Trump ends up beating Dementia Joe in 2020?  What about the Million Woman March, and BLM, and George Floyd, and Rayshard Brooks, Jacob Blake, and blah, blah, blah…


Seriously — I have not seen any report on this Democrat strategist memo about an increase in registration by non-college educated white voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.  The fact that the strategist would mention this variable is — to me — close to a “white flag of surrender” on the race.

Read this article, and take a moment to think about the implications on 2020 based on what happened in 2016 in Wisconsin.

Democrats fear more Trump Voters in Wisconsin.

That article is from October 2019 — last year.  Here are the key passages — and it seems to have been prescient in predicting what might be happening now.  Democrat fears are coming true:

Hillary Clinton’s victorious Election Day model for Wisconsin was wrong….  A knowledgeable pollster unaffiliated with Clinton assured me that Wisconsin would be closer than many supposed — but Democrats would prevail nonetheless.

…. Obama’s solid wins in 2008 and 2012 were solid exceptions…. Obama’s comfortable margins in the state obscured other, perhaps more relevant, data points. In 2004, John Kerry defeated George W. Bush in Wisconsin by little more than 11,000 votes – less than four-tenths of 1%.  Al Gore won the state over Bush in 2000 by fewer than 6,000 votes.

….. After the 2016 debacle, [analysts] zeroed in on another species of voter who contributed to the surprise: rural white men who were not regular voters. “I called up the clerks. I called up the poll workers. I wanted to know what happened.”  What the clerks and poll workers told her was that a number of Wisconsinites who voted in 2016 were new faces.  In rural counties like Buffalo… “ward-level data shows that a lot of people came to the polls for the first time.”

Some Democrats fear that Trump has the equivalent of reserve troops — non-college-educated white males who didn’t vote in 2016 but who, after four years of Trump’s domination of media, political culture and the very oxygen we all breathe, might turn out in 2020.

….In three counties in this southwest corner of the state, each of which flipped from Democrat to Republican, same-day registration jumped from 2012 to 2016 — up 22% in Vernon County, up 40% in Crawford, up 54% in Grant. “They were in their 20s, 30s and 40s, and they were farmers and they were mostly men,” Vinehout said of the new voters. “And they voted for Trump.”


But that is just someone reflecting on what happened four years ago — “lightning in a bottle” goes the excuse for why Clinton lost.  Others claimed Trump’s support was maxed out in midwestern states that Democrats are used to winning.

Here’s the nightmare part that was recognized by the author and political analyst last year.

[W]hat if Trump represents not a last gasp of cultural and racial revanchism but a new wave? What if the trickle of white men who voted for the first time in years in Wisconsin in 2016, despite widespread predictions that Trump’s candidacy was doomed, is followed in 2020 by a wave of previously nonvoting white males who conclude that Trump’s brand of tribal aggression is at last something worth voting for?

The universe of nonvoters is vast. Nationwide, 4 in 10 of those eligible did not vote in 2016. According to Brookings Institution demographer William Frey, more than 21 million nonvoters in 2016 were non-college-educated white men, Trump’s base. In Wisconsin … 459,000 non-college-educated white men didn’t vote in 2016. Trump won non-college-educated white men nationwide by an astounding 50 points. A modest rise in their turnout in key states in 2020 could swamp the Democratic nominee.

This dynamic is not limited to Wisconsin.  This dynamic is why Pennsylvania is not really in play even though the press needs to pretend it is in order to keep Democrat hopes alive.




Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos