Trump, Clinton, and rigging

Donald Trump at a conservative gathering in 2011. Does he truly pass the test? It would appear so--for he is now the voice of the silent American majority. He at least stays grounded in the real world.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The very unique 2016 presidential campaign has been rife with accusations and mud-slinging of all kinds levied by and against the candidates. On one hand, you have the quintessential establishment Democrat (Clinton) who has been planning for this day almost her entire life. And on the other hand you have the anti-establishment Republican (Trump) who values the American Dream that he has been living all of his life.

Trump and Clinton: how many support each

The two candidates couldn’t be more different, and neither could their supporters. While the Democrat received record low turnouts in her primary, the Republican received record highs. There’s more. The uninspiring Democratic candidate has a hard time populating her rallies. Reports speak of attendees (even at the Convention) receiving payment to fill their seats and cheer as if rehearsed. On the other hand, the Republican candidate has to literally turn thousands away from his rallies, which fill to maximum capacity. Furthermore, his Convention speech ran much longer than rehearsed due to the constant passionate and unexpected applause from the audience.

There’s still more. Of course, the devotees of failed campaigns refuse to support the people’s choice. So do the die-hard party hacks. Aside from these, the man or woman on the street overwhelmingly supports the Republican candidate. This support crosses Party lines. It also inspires many who have never gotten involved in politics or cast a vote before.

Why is it necessary to take all of this into account?

Polls do not reflect reality

Because recent polls that show Hillary Clinton is ahead by over 10 points, which is bewildering. Her untrustworthiness is common knowledge and her unlikability competes for her untrustworthiness status. So her rise in the polls is more than illogical. It is incomprehensible.

Let’s add another factor into this scenario before proceeding further. Next, Donald Trump has recently made claims that he believes the election will be rigged. If you have any awareness of the lack of voting integrity and how easily someone can hack a voting machine, Mr. Trump’s assertion would come as no surprise. With an ideologically driven media supporting Hillary Clinton, and the nefarious actions of the Democratic Party and their propensity to act in illegal manners, rigging anything should be assumed and not disparaged.

What does Obama know?

Enter Barack Obama. In response to Donald Trump’s allegations regarding a rigged election, BO made use of his bully pulpit to respond by stating that if the polls showed Mrs. Clinton ahead by 10% points or more, Mr. Trump would not have a valid argument if he lost the election.

Well, the polls are showing Mrs. Clinton ahead by 10% points or more. So, is it reasonable to ask that if someone could rig an election, couldn’t they rig the polls as well? Remember that those conducting the polls are ideologues that support Mrs. Clinton.

If this is the case, then maybe we shouldn’t be asking why Trump is saying that the election will be rigged.  Shouldn’t we ask instead what Barack Obama knows?

Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

12 Responses to Trump, Clinton, and rigging

  1. JeffA says:

    Opening with begging the question by stating that the “real man on the street supports trump despite the polls” and using that to justify that the polls are wrong. Polls are used to asses the common opinion, not anecdotal opinion to asses polls.

    Supporting that with an argument from incredulity that can not believe enough people would support hillary.

    Per state polls composed into an elector college percentage has had a consistent and smooth graph since the start of the year. See http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/ec_graph-2016.html and http://election.princeton.edu/history-of-meta-analysis/. There are no outliers in this data.

    You offer no evidence other than an appeal to consequences that things are “rigged” and the polls are in error. If P, then Q; Q is undesirable; therefore P is false.
    There are a dozen polling organizations using a variety of methodologies. Please point out how they are all be uniformly rigged or they bias/methodological flaw in how they are constructed. Rally attendance is anecdotal and probably more a measure of enthusiasm than support. A small group of enthusiastic supporters can fill a stadium, but not deliver on an election.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Only one thing suffices for those “dozen polling organizations using a variety of methodologies” to “uniformly rig” their polls. And that is: a shared ideology, or a shared beholden-ness to one candidate, in this case the candidate having the cash, the muscle, or both.

      https://youtu.be/7LYRUOd_QoM

      Rally attendance becomes statistically significant, not merely anecdotal, when you have dozens of rallies on each side to examine.

  2. JeffA says:

    The primaries show a flawed nomination system. When there are more than 2 prominent candidates first-past-the-post systems have large spoiler effects leading to the selection of the candidate with the most distinct support base, not the largest.

    Take 3 candidates where A and B are splitting 65% of the base with the C having the remaining 35%. Even though either A or B would have much more total support, candidate C is the winner. This problem gets worse as there are more candidates and as many of the candidate have more similarities in their support base.

    Trump had only a plurality of popular votes in primaries, but a majority of delegates due to the dilution of the other candidates. Had each state used a STV or instant runoff system, the candidate selected would have maximized his supporting voter base and may have reached a different outcome. The dozen traditional candidates were cannibalizing each other’s base. Trump supporters were largely disjoint from the others.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.