Today Hillary Clinton remains campaigning in Pennsylvania.  Yesterday Vice President Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton campaigned in Scranton, a few hundred people showed up.

Today, Hillary held a voter registration campaign eventin a High School gym in West Philadelphia – the attendance/turnout was essentially the same.

What’s going on?

Where are all these Clinton supporters the national media keep polling and talking about?

The answers are really quite simple.  They’re in the same place they were during the 2016 Democrat primary race.



In 2008 38,111,341 (38.1 million) democrats voted in the primary race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  [There was no dem primary in ’12]

Despite the media selling a narrative that the 2016 Democrat primary was motivating voters, the reality of the truth begs to differ.

In 2016 Total Democrat Turnout was 30,625,871 (30.6 million).  That’s a stunning 20% decrease from 2008.  …And it gets worse.

If you back out the 2016 California primary voters (Clinton -v- Sanders as a hotly contested battle of liberal ideologies), that removes 5.1 million primary votes.  Leaving a total of 25.4 million primary voters.   A stunningly low number of Democrats voted in the primary.

This low primary interest is clear evidence of the complete lack of enthusiasm for the Democrat side of the ticket; and this is despite the media hype 24/7 to manufacture a completely false impression.

Now, go and look at the graph again:

2008 Republican primary turnout was 21,971,470 (21.9 million)2012 Republican primary turnout was 19,214,513 (19.2 million)2016 Republican primary turnout was 31,169,714 (31.1 million)

Yes, that’s correct.  The 2016 total GOP turnout 31.1 million, was greater than the total DEM turnout 30.6 million.

That’s a 62% increase in Republican primary voting over 2012 (31.1 million -vs- 19.2 million).  That’s a lot of enthusiasm on the GOP side of the ticket.

  2016 is the first time in presidential history that Republican Primary voters numbered more than Democrat primary voters [during an open (no incumbent) presidential election.]

If you take out the California primary numbers from both parties [2.2 million ® and 5.2 million (D)] The total primary vote is even more stunning.  W/Out CA:

28,902,408 voters chose a republican25,452,523 voters chose a democrat

Remember, historically Democrat turnout has crushed Republican turnout in primary elections.  However, this year, for the first year, more votes were cast on the GOP side of the ticket than the DEM side.

Why is this important?

Every single poll uses “turnout” modeling and “party affiliation” modeling as part of their methodology and equation when they are turning poll respondent answers into actual poll data that is released.

Based on the primary results [31.1M ® -vs- 30.6M (D)] there should be a slight edge to Republicans (R +1%) in every national poll *if the General Election is modeled on the primary turnout.  However, not a single poll does this.

Another consideration.  The increase between primary voters and general election voters is pretty consistent over multiple elections.

In 2008 the Democrat increase in vote participation (primary to general) was an increase of 74.69%.

38,111,341 primary voters (Clinton V Obama)66,578,783 general election voters (Obama)Diff + 28,467,442 (+74.69%)

In 2008 the Republican increase in vote participation (primary to general) was an increase of 164.58%

21,971,470 primary voters (McCain v Romney)58,132,353 general election voters (McCain)Diff +36,160,883 (+164.58%)

In 2012 the Republican increase in vote participation (primary to general) was an increase of 208.06%

19,214,513 primary voters (Romney vs Gingrich)59,193,587 general election voters (Romney)Diff +39,979,074 (+208.06%)

If you want to be heavily conservative and transpose 2016 general election prediction based on the 2016 primary results:  Give Hillary a +75% increase (full Obama), and Give Trump +100% (that’s half of the normal GOP increase)

What’s outlined there assumes: Hillary Clinton can capture the voter enthusiasm of Barack Obama in 2008 (jaw-droppingly unlikely), and Donald Trump can capture half of the enthusiasm of Mitt Romney (gobsmackingly most likely).

Do you see how the fundamental election landscape is factually set up to be the exact opposite of what the media is selling?

The underpinning of the 2016 election landscape is the mirror image, the exact opposite of the narrative the media sells daily.

Many would argue that’s too simplistic and the electoral college is based on individual states not total popular vote.  However, I like K.I.S.S. because it’s rarely wrong, and when you look exclusively for voter enthusiasm and candidate engagement, the same statistics come out of key battleground states.

Total Primary Votes:

Virginia:  1,025,452 voted republican.  785,041 voted democrat.Pennsylvania:  1,594,475 voted republican. 1,681, 427 voted democrat.Ohio: 1,988,960 voted republican. 1,241,478 voted democrat.Florida:  2,361,805 voted republican.  1,709,183 voted democrat.Michigan:  1,323,589 voted republican.  1,205,552 voted democrat.

It really doesn’t matter which state you look at, the results are almost identical.  There’s no anomalies within the data, it is what it is.   Any poll can be used to deliver the answer you want to read within it; any set of statistics can also be used in a similar fashion.  However, the bottom line is there’s more voter engagement on the GOP side of the binary contest.

That’s just a simple fact.

That’s also why Hillary Clinton is holding a registration drive in West Philadelphia, because the rest of the state is in an epic landslide in favor of Donald Trump.  The high population urban center of Philadelphia is Clinton’s “only” hope of winning Pennsylvania.

I’ve made a lot of phone calls in the past two days.  Every state’s ground reports are identical to the primary modeling outlined above. The media is presenting a totally false view of the race.

The media is so severe about their position because the reality is so fundamentally against the outcome they desire.   If you doubt your own commonsense, go back and look at the Trump -vs- Clinton rallies in Erie, Scranton, Altoona etc.



Erie



Scranton



Reading



Altona





When Clinton stops spending in Pennsylvania it’s not because she has it in the bag, the exact opposite is true.  It’s because further spending is futile….

There is zero enthusiasm for inauthentic Hillary Clinton.  None.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/201...lphia-why/

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I'll vote for her if she'll stop screaming her speeches.

(08-16-2016 07:27 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  When Clinton stops spending in Pennsylvania it’s not because she has it in the bag, the exact opposite is true.  It’s because further spending is futile….

The Clinton superpacs have stopped spending in some battleground states for three reasons, and neither has to do with whether she is winning or not. Because she certainly isnt winning by much in those states if she is. The reason they are pulling back spending right now is because:

1. They just dropped $150million in spending and are not seeing the results they want. In fact, the polls are sliding backwards.

2. Trump and the republican superpacs are going to drop a quarter billion in spending in the final 45 days on her, and they need to save some money to counter that.

3. They may need to spread their ad dollars to more areas, especially if states like CT are in play.

The issue she has with money is that Trump can write himself a huge check at any time. She is at a money disadvantage. And since they went the Jeb! route and spent like drunken sailors and see a small lead that dwindling, spending more isnt the answer.

(08-16-2016 08:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 07:27 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  When Clinton stops spending in Pennsylvania it’s not because she has it in the bag, the exact opposite is true.  It’s because further spending is futile….

The Clinton superpacs have stopped spending in some battleground states for three reasons, and neither has to do with whether she is winning or not. Because she certainly isnt winning by much in those states if she is. The reason they are pulling back spending right now is because:

1. They just dropped $150million in spending and are not seeing the results they want. In fact, the polls are sliding backwards.

2. Trump and the republican superpacs are going to drop a quarter billion in spending in the final 45 days on her, and they need to save some money to counter that.

3. They may need to spread their ad dollars to more areas, especially if states like CT are in play.

The issue she has with money is that Trump can write himself a huge check at any time. She is at a money disadvantage. And since they went the Jeb! route and spent like drunken sailors and see a small lead that dwindling, spending more isnt the answer.

I guess your version of reality is as good as anyone's.