Editor’s attention: Below is an exclusive fragment of Roger Stone’s modern book Making of the President 2016: How Donald Trump organized a revolution.
How could the polls be so wrong? Virtually every MSM survey showed Hillary as certainty. How did they miss Trump’s wave?
From the beginning of the interviewers race, they have completely misunderstanded and appreciated who would vote in both the democratic party and the main media trend. There has never been realistic thinking that Hillary’s attendance model would be exactly like Obama. There are many reasons why Hillary Clinton did not perform as well among African Americans as Obama. Hillary’s support was supple, and most considered her “dishonest” and “unbelievable”. Hillary was also bleeding among progressive democrats and supporters of Bernie Sanders, whose views on trade and war were closer to Trump than to Hillary. The media continuously continued with the support of an archaic model, raising the number of democrats in their samples according to design or stupidity.
Reuters and ABC were caught to inflate their democratic test.
Tony Fabrizio, the Trump’s string, saw a different model. From the very beginning, he accepted a lower black turnout, a edged raise in white Catholic Democrats who voted for Obama, but moved to Trump, and exodus of older white women, of whom 53 percent voted for Trump. Fabrizio constantly pressed the “map extension” to Wisconsin and Michigan, as well as the doubling of Western Pennsylvania to provide Trump, a clear path to reach 270 election votes, as Fabriziodid, that Trump will wear Ohio and Florida.
The Fabrizio attendance model was deadly. The Fabriziocolleagues probe John McLaughlin and Kellyanne Conway confirmed the New Yorkers overflowing projections.
The answer to why the polls were so wrong is relatively plain. The truth is that Hillary Clinton was an unattractive presidential candidate who did little to inspire democratic survey voters, especially compared to Barack Obama – a charismatic candidate capable of postponing the idea of ​​”the first black president” for voices. Identity policy acted for Obama, because identity appeals were not the only topics of Obama’s campaign. In 2008, Mantra “Hope and Change” resonated with voters tired of seemingly endless America wars in the Middle East. Economic innch caused by a crack of the subprime bubble, when the second term of office of George W. Bush was over, gave additional energy to Obama’s appeals. Running in decades experience in public service turned out to be harmful to Hillara. She could not shake her history of the scandals, with Whitewater meeting by Bengazi’s disaster, her e-mail scandal and the “Pay-to-to-Play” cash machine, which functioned primarily as a family piggybank.
In 2016, surveys based on the mainstream media were based on the assumption that Hillary would attract Democrats to vote in numbers and proportions similar to people experienced in 2008 and 2012. When this did not happen, the surveys committed the overcurrent of Democrats. As a result, the polls were distorted to promote high democratic attendance, exaggerated Hillary from support, and at the same time disregarded Trump’s real appeal. What the surveyers did not estimate correctly in 2016 was the degree at which voters in the heart of America were disappointed with the White House of Obama. The statement that Heartland voters were disappointed in 2016, and the idea of ​​Hillary Clinton replaced Barack Obama in the White House is an understatement. Hillary Clinton was unique among all candidates in 2016 for her ability to create “fear and hatred” similar to Hunter S. Thompson.
White middle class voters faced the perspective of listening to her pontificate for four years as a president. While Barack Obama did not fulfill the promises he made in 2008, Hillary Clinton in comparison, looked like an elderly, most likely unwell and generally incensed world, and at the same time was largely devoid of modern ideas. The point is that Hillary Clinton, who lost to Barack Obama in 2008, was thus a failed candidate who lost to Donald Trump in 2016.
“Two Barack Obama wins have created the impression of a strong wind at the back of the Democratic Party. His constituencies – young, unbelievable and educated universities – not only grew, but also voted in a growing number. The eternal issue of election attendance finally seemed to help in the political left, “said David Leonhardt in New York Times On November 17, 2016, “However, the longer view begins to look completely different.
None of the other three latest democratic presidential candidates – Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore – inspired great attendance. George W. Bush, as you remember, was widely considered to be a political ground game. In the election outside of the year, democratic turnout is even more violent, which helps explain the Republican dominance of the Congress, the governor’s residence and state legislators. “The point is: in the simplest categories Republican turnout seems to be growing this year, while democratic attendance Stagnation.
The analyzes of posthumous voters were clear. . New York Times He pointed out that in poviats in which Trump won at least 70 percent of votes, the number of cast votes increased by 2.9 percent compared to 2012. In comparison, in poviats in which Clinton won at least 70 percent, the number of votes It was 1.7 percent lower in this cycle. In addition to increasing their participation among white women without university studies, Trump received 29 percent of Latin votes compared to 27 percent of Romney in 2012 6 percent.Trump could award an elite in a coastal belt from San Francisco to Los Angeles to San Diego, as well as in New York and the district to Clinton, if Trump won the great among the working class voters in the rest of the nation.
Add to this that the exaggerated attendance of African Americans was throughout the country. The Clinton were wounded by their support for the 1994 crime act, which imprisoned thousands of black men for crimes without violence and allegations regarding the abandoned son of Bill, Danney Williams, who claimed that he was banished by Hillary. Over 55 million voters watched his online movies within three weeks before the election. In addition, Trump received 3% more black voting than Romney. These two factors themselves, depressed black attendance and compact, but significant benefits among African Americans have been drinking Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
It was the same lesson Richard Nixon taught Democrats in 1968. But Haton Nixon, who dominated the Democratic Party in 1968, transformed into hatred of the bush in the 2000s. To end today’s hatred of Trump-all for Trump-all for Trump-all of Trump for Trump-all for the pity of democrats themselves. Truth is an elite, extremely leftist socialists, who currently control the Democratic Party, have little to do with Harry Truman, John Kennedy and senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. If the extremely left -wing elite controlling the Democratic Party have their own way, the Democratic Party will most likely become a social party in the European style with a decrease in electoral success on a national basis.
