My 2016 election predictions

Last June I predicted Hillary would win the Democratic nomination. Also predicted that Bernie would come close. Also predicted Scott Walker would bore, struggle in the debates, and get nowhere. Also predicted Christie would “either shine or bomb” (funny enough, he sort-of did both).

All of that was correct.

I also predicted Jeb would win the GOP nomination. Oops.

Got lots right, but one big thing wrong. That said, here are my updated predictions.

  • Trump will win in November.
  • We’ll look back and see last week’s FBI statement as the beginning of the end for Hillary. She’ll never poll higher than she does right now.
  • Trump will pick Democrat Michael Flynn for his running-mate. This creates a “unity ticket” that will win over 5-6% of Democrats and seal the deal in several swing states.
  • Of the swing states, Trump will win FL, GA, NC, VA, PA, OH, IN, AZ and NV.
  • Trump’s cabinet will include prominent Democrats and his policies will be generally moderate. He’ll slow down military spending, cut taxes, and travel the world trying to make “deals.”

In general, I’m optimistic on Trump–both his odds of winning and his presidency. I don’t agree with his policies, but I do think he’ll be wildly successful.

I also think Trump is serious about being a “unifier.” My reasons have to do with a speech he gave in Mara-a-Lago after winning super Tuesday. In it, he said this:

I am a unifier. I know people are going to find that a bit hard to believe but believe me, I am a unifier.

Simple. Straightforward. He says stuff like this all the time, right?

Actually, no. Here is Trump being, for the only time ever, fully transparent. That’s significant. When he says “I know people are going to find that a bit hard to believe,” he reveals that he is very aware of how he comes across. He’s aware of what people think about him. He’s not insane. He’s playing a game and has a strong grasp of how he’s perceived.

He never revealed as much before, and, to my knowledge, never revealed as much since. Part of his game is mind-games–he wants to keep everyone questioning. That’s what good negotiators do, right?

Now, if Trump is aware that it’s”hard to believe” he is a unifier, that means he’s going to do something about it. He’s going to make it easier to believe. His Mike Flynn VP pick at the GOP convention will begin that process.

Do I think Trump is an act? That he’s playing everyone, conning the GOP, and lying all around just to win? Yes. But isn’t that what any winner does? Those who truly want to win?

Just some random thoughts. This is me being very transparent–I could be totally wrong and ruin my credibility on these things forever.

Not that I have any credibility on these things to begin with…

3 thoughts on “My 2016 election predictions

  1. You’re guessing. I get that. Me, I believe in math, statistical probability. No matter who the two major party nominees are, the Democrats have more safe states, and a significant advantage in Electoral College votes before the election starts. There are only 8-10 “swing” states. To win, the Democrat only has to win one big state, or a couple of small ones, on top of keeping their “safe” states. The Republican has to keep their safe states, and also win 8-9 of the swing states to get to 270.

    It’s very, very unlikely that Trump will win, because under the current demographics, no Republican can win without being a truly unifying type, like Reagan, who drew large numbers of voters from outside the core base of supporters. Neither of the likely major party nominees this year are unifiers, though I’m sure both would like to be. Under that condition, the Republican will lose.

    • We just disagree on how wide is Trump’s appeal. I think it’s wider than the polls say. Also, you can’t just claim “math” and “statistics.” What about polling trends? Trump is trending up – does that count for anything?

      • Respectfully, I didn’t just claim math, I explained how the math, and the rules, has an impact on outcomes. Many misunderstand that popular vote totals do not by themselves win presidential elections. Polls indicate current, transitory popularity, but they don’t even sample Electoral College probability.

        To me, polls are basically snapshots of that day’s feelings, not indicative of trends unless you graph them over at least a three month period. People don’t absorb news information at the same rates, and a large portion of voters do not even focus on their choices until after the conventions, a month or so before Election Day. Polls reflect more accuracy the closer we get to then.

        Under those considerations, Trump is not trending up, he went up for a week. To trend up, his negative numbers would need to show reduction over time. But his negatives have increased over time, while Clinton’s (though high) have stayed the same. I believe he closed the gap (temporarily) because Clinton was hurt by the results of her email scandal, but I don’t know if that will trend or reverse permanently, because enough time has not passed. The most recent polling erased Trump’s gains and went back to the previous Clinton advantage of about 4-6% average. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *