2020 Election forecasting

I saw a headline that Moody had an election forecast model which shows Trump wins by a landslide.  I thought immediately that this can’t be.  Landslides happen when a very popular president runs for re-election, and wins big in certain key states.

Moody has a forecast model, which uses economic variables to predict election winners.   They produced 3 elections scenarios:  (1) Democrats win by a narrow margin (2) Republicans win by a narrow margin and (3) Republicans win by a wide margin.   The difference in these three models is the % turnout of the opposition party (Democrats) in the election.   Republicans win if this % Democratic turnout is average or below average.  Democrats win with a high Democratic turnout.  Of course, this turnout will not be known until after the election.   It is really what every election strategist will tell their candidate, that it isn’t enough to get people to agree with you,  you have to get them to vote for you.

Rule 1:  You need to fire up your base at election time or at least more than your opponent.

Moody’s work predicts every outcome but a Democratic landslide.   Moody’s considered 3 models, all using economic data, state-by-state.  I’ve included their model description in the links.   The approach passes my quick “six state reasonable check.   Regardless of the model and turnout,  Republicans win in TX 38,  GA 16, and TN 11 while Democrats win CA 55, NY 29 and IL20.  Postal  codes are followed by the electoral votes (EV)).   Moody predicts that all toss up states go to Trump when Democrat turnout is low or average.  I’m skeptical of this result.   They include all elections from 1980 to 2016.  I believe the earlier elections with Reagan victories may have skewed their results.  No candidate can win in New York, California and Texas anymore.

I’m particularly skeptical of Moody’s  wide margin win case,  with Trump beating Democrats  380 to 158 electoral votes.  That’s a solid win but not a landslide by historical standards.   Crushing victories haven’t happened for 3 decades.   The more recent landslides  were: 1972 Nixon vs.  McGovern with 520 EV,  1980 Reagan vs. Carter 489 EV and 1984 Reagan vs Mondale 525 EV.   Yet Reagan crushed Carter in 1980, he won just 50.7% of the popular vote. Nixon won by a landslide and a solid popular vote of 60.7%, yet resigned two years with the Watergate scandal.   I won’t go there- this blog already getting long!

Rule 2: You don’t have to be popular in every state, just the ones that count.

I tried to compare Moody’s work to everyone else making forecasts, but it just got too complicated.  I’m sticking with my  list of 5 solid toss up states of MI 16,  WI 10, PA  20. FL 29 and AZ 11, made on my Aug 19 blog. I also included the extra 2 contenders for the “who knows” list:  NC 15 and  NH 4,  plus 2 Republican leaners,  GA 16 and OH 18,  both with sizable EVs.    All total  these nine states have 145 electoral votes and will decide the election.

As far as the solid Republican vs Democrat vote,  I think the Democratic candidate begins more solid support.  In the link given below, the safe EV for Democrats varies from 183 to 209.  The Republicans can count on a safe 125 EV although there is certainly an upside to this.  If we look at states which went Republican since year 2000, the EV count is 179.  See link below.

Following Rules 1 and 2 are important.  I’d like to add this final rule.

Rule 3:  Election forecasts do not necessarily get better with time.    Forecasts showing one candidate to win,  can actually help the opposing candidate.

My case in point is all the polls in 2016 showed Hillary Clinton would win Florida.  But they all showed the race to be very close.   The candidate may be popular but that’s not enough – see Rule 1.   Hillary Clinton was widely predicted to win the 2016 election and this gave Trump supporters more incentive to vote.

Every time a candidate appears to be ahead in a swing state, the opposing candidate will double their efforts.  The “close the gap” strategy precludes any landslide elections.    Each candidate will target the swing states with every trick in the book.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

Moody’s Model

270toWin.com

Wikipedia: Presidential elections

 

 

Trump’s impeachment

Do I dare go there?  There is some excellent coverage already, and I just can’t see adding much.  I believe this scenario:  House will vote in favor of impeachment.  Trump and his supporters will immediately claim they did because they knew that they’ll never win at the polls in 2020, and will stop at nothing to throw him out.   The Senate will fail to get the 2/3 needed and the rest is history.

I’ll let others figure out how this affects Trump’s popularity.   So far Gallup polls don’t show much change up or down.  I would like the time spent discussing other important issues.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

 

 

Who will win the 2020 Presidential Election?

States where democrats or republicans won big in 2016 are likely to do the same in 2020.  It is all about who can win  the big swing states.

These states, and their electoral votes  are:  Michigan (MI, 16 votes),  Wisconsin (WI,10), Pennsylvania (PA, 20), Florida (FL, 29), Arizona (AZ, 11).   All total, these 5 states have 86 electoral votes.

There’s not universal agreement on the swing states.  Some forecasters include North Carolina (NC, 15),  New Hampshire (NH, 4) and Iowa (IA, 6) adding another 25 electoral votes to the “who really knows” category.

There’s also a lean republican category, which includes Georgia (GA, 16) and Ohio (OH, 18) for another 34 votes.  Some feel Florida should also be in this category.

So, the lazy man’s approach is to take the solid states’ vote (Rep 125, Dem 188), and all the possible swing states (86 + 25 + 34 = 145) and divide by 2, giving each party 72 votes.  Nobody gets 270 votes, but the Democrats with 260 votes are a lot closer than Republicans with 197 electoral votes.

This approach didn’t work in 2016 and it’s not likely to work in 2020.  It isn’t enough for the candidates to convince voters that they should be president for the next four years, they must be able to get their supporters to show up at the polls.

Another perverse aspect of forecasting – any positive results are likely to make supporters of a particular candidate less likely to show up at the polls, because they figure their vote is unnecessary.  This is the complacency factor, that dogged Hillary Clinton.

However,  the 9 states  (WI, PA, FL, AZ, NC, NH, IA, GA, OH)  is where all the action will be centered.  Well maybe just 8 hot spots because NH has only 4 electoral votes.   Pennsylvania and Florida are super hot spots.

Still very early but let the games begin!

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

Trump should not be impeached

No one would travel down a blocked road.  They would turn back once they knew the road was blocked.

If the House  passes articles of impeachment, it would then go to the Senate, and the Republican majority would vote against impeachment.   So, Trump would win and declare victory.  After all, he has said that the Russian investigation was a big hoax.  The Mueller report did not exonerate the President on obstruction of justice.   Democrats are right that there is a lot of evidence to support impeachment proceedings.

Trump will have some excellent lawyers come to his defense the moment the House Judiciary Committee begins hearings.   One of them is renown legal expert Alan Dershowitz who wrote a book, “The Case Against Impeaching Trump” which I have not read, but got the essence of his arguments from numerous appearances on cable television, mainly Fox network.   The legal defense will begin with there is no evidence that the President directly interfered with the Mueller probe.  Trump really went through others in an effort to impede the investigation.  Secondly, any obstruction attempt  was unsuccessful.   Finally, his lawyers will charges against him do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

It should be difficult to impeach a President, because the President is chosen by the electorate.   A trial of impeachment is never a fair trial.  The argument for maintaining a high threshold for impeachment, is that the legislature, in a political trial, is overturning the decision of the electorate.   I can see why civil libertarians  like Alan Dershowitz  will side with the president.  The  right to vote becomes much less important if the legislature can easily remove a sitting president.  Impeachment has none of the safeguards of protecting the rights of the accused, to be innocent until proven guilty.

We have only two precedents on the Senate impeachment trials, Bill Clinton (1999) and Andrew Johnson (1868).  Both trials failed to get the two-thirds vote necessary to remove the president.  Voting in both trials coincided with  party lines, clearly demonstrating the partisan nature of the trial.  In Clinton’s case.  the Senators deliberations were conducted in a closed door session.

Thus, in these  critical months before the election,  the real issues take not center stage, as they should.  The only proper and successful way to remove Donald Trump from office is through the ballot box based on the fact that there are better candidates to lead our country.  Anything else is a distraction.   My cable news station has 3 channels which are strongly Republican (2 on Fox and OAN) and they will be lambasting the impeachment hearings every minute they can.   All Democrats will be doing is creating political theater, likely to turn off voters.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

The Democratic Candidates for President

My God, there are a lot of them.  I’ve broken them down into 4 groups:  Top dogs (4),  Possible, but not likely  (4),  No chance (15), and don’t vote for these people because they have never held elected office in their lives (2).

Top dogs:  Biden, Harris, Sanders, Warren

Possible, but not likely:  Klobuchar, Booker, Buttigieg and O’Rourke

No chance:  Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Blasio, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Messen, Moulton. O’Rourke, Ryan, Swalwell,

Don’t vote for these people:  Williamson, Yang

I check Williamson’s website, and it shows she really knows her issues.   I just think she should start by being a Senator or Governor, to show us she’s cut out for the job.

I know exactly what you are thinking – where is Oprah?  She publicly said she would not run.  Mark Zuckerberg is also not running.  Some primaries in February will help separate out the true candidates from the rest.  Then,  8 months from now, on March 3, comes a whole slew of primaries.  I think the field will drop to about 8 candidates.

 

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Wikipedia:  Democratic Presidential Primaries

Predicting the US Presidential Election 2020

Wow this may seem way too early, as we don’t know which one of the 23 announced Democrats will make it to the be their party’s candidate.   However,  there are states which consistently vote for Republicans or Democrats, and this is the basis of political forecasting.   And there is this incredible paradox in forecasting as the forecast itself can alter the actual results.  If the consensus  says that party ‘X’ will win, then supporters of Party “X’ are less motivated to vote, and the supporters of Party ‘Y’ are more motivated, meaning more will vote.   Also the candidates will change their strategy based on which states are leading or lagging in their run.

I sum it up like this: – it is difficult to identify how a population feels about a candidate when the candidates are doing everything in their power to change people’s opinion.

Polls can be so wrong, for a long list of reasons.  Of the eligible voters, 42% did not vote.  Any poll which included the general public, may be representative of the popularity of a candidate, but this isn’t what counts in an election.   In an evenly divided state such as Florida,  obtaining a representative sample in a timely manner is difficult.  The polling  margins in Florida (% difference between candidates) were very small in 2016, so results were significantly affected by sampling errors.   If this stuff interest you, then you have to know the state symbols and the websites.

There are many sites  of which  270towin.com  and Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball are the best right now in providing non-partisan forecasts of the US Presidential elections.     In my opinion,  forget any website which says “It looks like a landslide for Candidate ‘X’  or Party ‘X,’      I can’t predict much, but a landslide is out of the question.  We have been a very evenly divided country politically for at least 19 years.

To make a educated guess of who will win the election,  the prognosticators generally subdivide the electoral states into 7 categories (Solid Dem, Likely  Dems, Lean Dems, Toss up,  Lean Rep, Likely Rep and Solid Rep).   There’s a 5 category model with Likely and Lean combined into one category.

There are 5 big toss ups, as follows with the state symbol and electoral votes:   AZ(11), FL(29), WI(10), MI(16), PA(20).   This is the “Consensus view” per the 270toWin website.   The total is 86 votes.   We have in these 5 states something I will call “Hardcore uncertainty.”    The tossup total is 87 (one extra comes from NE),

The biggest prize is Florida, carrying 29 EV, or about a third of the total tossups.  The candidate which wins Florida,  Michigan and Pennsylvania takes 75% of the tossups.

Now, not everyone is agreeing on this tossup category.  Larry Sabato’s Crystal ball from the University of Virginia, considers PA, AZ, WI and NH as tossups, for a total of 46%.    Sabato adds NH but the state only has 4 EV’s.  So, the big prize is Pennsylvania.   In Sabato’s forecast, Florida leans Republican and Michigan leans Democrat,  Net it is a gain of 13 EV’s in favor of Republicans.

As I take a more broad view of the  “solids” in the map,  it seems that evident that Republicans are the majority in  the US heartland with a solid red, from North Dakota and Montana to Oklahoma and Louisiana.   Democrats are solid on the very populous east and west coasts.   Texas was usually considered a solid Republican state, but is now considered in the “likely” group for Republicans.   Our country is not as divided as the maps might seem to present.  It is far mixed up politically with local elections in red states going to Democratic candidates and vice versa.    The third link from Wikipedia has an excellent discussion on “Map Interpretation.:

This forecasting is interesting because everyone sees the same information at the same time.   In fact each political party is very focused on the polling numbers.  and generates their own forecasts to boot.    Again, I come back to the point that whatever the consensus forecast is at any one time, the subsequent actions of the parties acts to drive the statistics in the opposite direction,  reducing the forecast’s accuracy.  For example,  if Democrats believe they can turn Texas or Republicans can turn Michigan, they will race to the state, with a barge of arguments why only their candidate can run the country.  A final point is the hypocrisy in all this is not lost, as each candidate will tell their supporters that they are more interested in issues rather than polling statistics, when their staffs and paid consultants are looking daily at the numbers.

Stay tuned,

Dave

https://www.270towin.com/

http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2020-president/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

Inspector General’s Report

The link below is the full 500+ report, which as I predicted, is being reported very differently by Republicans and Democrats.    Fox News headline is:  “Disaster for Comey”  with the implication that whatever is bad for Comey,  makes the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton look bad.   They further go on to say “Trump breaks silence with damning IG report, say it vindicates move to fire FBI boss.”

The New York Times headline avoided the same adjectives, such as bombshell (seen on Fox News)  but reported “FBI Faulted in Clinton Case.”   They mention the  part of the report that Democrats like –  the conclusion that political opinions of some at  FBI involved in the Clinton email investigation  did not influence the outcome.

So, both Republicans and Democrats can reach different conclusions.   And, finally the reason most Americans will not bother to read it (beyond laziness), is best summed up by one blogger:, “The IG is just as crooked as the rest of the FBI and DOJ.”   So,  paranoid conspiracy bloggers don’t need to read and can just troll the internet for big conspiracy advocates.

The IG’s conclusions are based on the information as given in the 500 pages of documentation.   I think that’s pretty good.

2016_election_final_report_06-14-18_0

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

Trump and Sessions

Most of this has already been said in the press and on news commentary shows.  The Attorney General is nominated by the president, serves at the pleasure of the president and may be fired by president at any time.  The Department of Justice must at the same time conduct investigations independently of the president.   AG Jeff Sessions, whether you like him or hate him, has focused on areas which  are of high concern to President Trump- illegal immigrants in the US and drug trafficking.   He is likely will prosecute anyone who  illegally  discloses  information, when investigations yield compelling evidence.

Sessions has been attacked in tweets by Trump, who said he is very disappointed at the AG.   Commentators believe he is trying to have Sessions resign rather than fire him.

The attorney general  must be loyal to the Constitution and the rule of law.  What Sessions won’t do, is make unwarranted accusations and use the Department for partisan purposes.    He was involved in the election campaign of Donald Trump, so it is likely he had close contact with Paul Manafort and others under investigation.   To his credit, he recused himself from the Russian  investigation, so his activities could be investigated without any suggestion of impropriety.   This strengthens the public perception of the integrity of the investigation.

Trump seems obsessed about leaks and the reporting of these leaks in the media.  He wasn’t at all concerned about this when leaks were coming out on a daily basis on Hillary Clinton.  Eric Holder had an active investigation on Julian Assange, who runs Wikileaks.  If he ever steps in the US, hopefully he will be arrested.   Charges against  Edward Snowden have already been filed under the Obama administration.   Should Snowden or Julian Assange ever step foot in the US,  you can be sure that they will be prosecuted under the  full force of the Justice Department..  It makes no difference if this occurs under a Democratic or Republican administration.

But, what Trump has in mind, is the chatter that goes on between White House insiders and the media.  Also, as his popularity is sinking, he has revived the campaign promise to go after violations of the law of Hillary Clinton for disclosure of classified information.   Similar attacks have been launch against FBI Director Comey.  The Department of Justice has access to all the information gathered by the FBI,  and if they feel there is a compelling case, with a reasonable chance of prevailing in their charges,  I am sure Jeff Sessions will not hesitate for one minute to bring charges against Clinton or Comey.   However,  he will not use his office to make frivolous accusations against them.   He will not turn the Department of Justice into a bully pulpit.

I can only surmise that the only reason the Department of Justice had not pressed charges, is because there is insufficient evidence of violation of the law.    I have provided a link below on some myths about what is considered  confidential information.   One  popular myth is  that confidential information should be easily recognized by its subject matter alone and need not be so designated .

Trump was at the Boy Scout Jamboree, and treated it like some kind of campaign rally.   The first two qualities in the Boy Scout oath are Trustworthy and Loyal.   I believe both Jeff Sessions and  FBI Director Comey  through their decades of government service are exemplary  of these qualities.   They are loyal to the people’s representatives who through the ages, created and expanded the Justice Department and the FBI.  No one made the government exempt in administrating their duties as this would undermine our democratic process.  They were not going to allow the integrity be diminished by the political desires of the president of the United States.

Link:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html?utm_term=.e610934bea2e

Link on Jeff Sessions:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions

Stay tuned,

Dave

PS:  Trump’s approval rating is 37% according to the latest Gallup poll.

Going forward with President Trump

Is  President Trump going to make America great again?  I have strong doubts.

It is clear that the stock market wanted Clinton to win.  The Dow futures dropped nearly 5% when it became clear around 11:00 pm that Trump had a high probability of winning.

If what kills our economy are unfair trade deals, currency manipulation and  competition from China,  then one would think the policies of Trump would be embraced by the stock market. But, this morning’s future trading  and overseas markets say otherwise.   The world markets are in shock.

World economics  is complicated. What looks to be in the US advantage short term, can end up a total disaster later.   The markets are concerned about  the potential for destabilization of our relations with other countries, and disruptive actions on trade agreements. Some economists predicted Trump would lead us back into recession, through tax cuts for the wealthy and increase government spending, particularly on the military.

I prepare a list of hot issues for 2017,  but I’m holding off posting  them,  given how wrong I was about the elections.  We now are in the transition period.  Trump takes office January 20, 2017.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

Results

Election results will continually updated through the night.  Surprises would be anything that would cause us to adjust our projection of Clinton winning with 322 to 328 EV.   The Elections can also be followed on CNN.com.

Wins may be actual or projected wins.   The % of vote in is shown on their site

Link:  http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

11:35 pm Trump declared projector winner of Florida (29 EV),  re-takes the lead with 216 to 196 EV.

11:30  pm Trump 171 Clinton 190

11:11 pm *** Trump projected winner in NC,  considered to lean to Clinton, with 15 EV.

11:08  pm Trump leads FL by 131696 with 96% of vote. Around 360,000 votes to go, so Clinton would have to get around 70% of them to tie.

11:03 pm Trump leads in Wisconsin (10 EV) considered a solid or likely Clinton win.

11:01 pm  Clinton wins CA,  Clinton 190 Trump 171.   CA was always considered a solid Clinton.

10:55 pm  Path to Trump victory is open, with close races in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina and PA.

10:47 pm  Clinton takes New Mexico and Virginia, both considered likely Clinton wins, tally now is Ttump 169 Clinton 109.

10:27 om Trump is the projected winner of Ohio.  Trump now 167 EV to Clinton’s  109.

10:23 pm Trump leads in Florida by 135,000 votes and there is only 5% yet to process.  I calculate that Clinton must get 65% of the remaining votes to tie Trump.

10:16  pm Trump 149 Clinton 109.  All toss-up states are very close,  and VA which was a leaning Clinton state.

9:52 Trump 136 Clinton 104

9:30 pm   FL, NC and  VA are close races.   If Trump wins these states,  Hillary may lose the election.

9:26 pm  Trump 128 EV  Clinton 97 EV

8:54 pm *** This will be no easy win for Clinton with Florida and NC still too close to call.

8:46 pm Race in North Carolina is tight.  Clinton still leads with ~60,000 votes. 61% processed.   Race in NC is critical with 15 EV.

8:43 pm Trump has a projected wins of 66 EV,  Clinton 68,  but if Trump takes FL, he’ll have 95 EV.

8:40 pm Trump ahead in FL by ~ 100,000 votes.

8:31 pm *** Trump may take Florida, in which case Clinton could still win with 293 EV (assuming she wins NC and NV, loses OH).

8:31 pm In Florida,  Trump pulls ahead by 68,000 votes (0.7% lead)

8:22 pm  In Florida,  Trump pulls ahead by 4,000 votes (0.1% lead).

8:17 pm Florida remains extremely close, less than 200 votes apart!

8:13 pm  In FL, Trump and Clinton differ by less than 4000 votes,   87% est. processed.

8:07 pm  Trump and Clinton extremely close in Florida, with 77% of vote in.   Clinton slightly ahead.

11/8/16 8:00 pm (EST)  Trump  48 Clinton 68   No toss ups reporting yet, no surprises.

 

 

Election Predictions, Clinton wins with 322 to 328 EV

Prediction made 11/8 at 6:39 pm

Looks like:

Clinton  wins NH, Nevada, Florida, NC

Trump wins OH, Iowa, Maine (CD2), Nebraska, Arizona, Utah. Georgia, Arizona

So Clinton has 268 in the strong + likely  category plus 54 in toss-up states to win with 322 EV which is 52 EV over what she needs.

But Clinton might win Ohio, giving her 328 EV,  which I give about a 40% chance.

Election predictions

Stay tuned,

Dave

Decision day

It’s 7:37 am in Florida, and the polls opened at 7:00 am.   But each state sets its own rules, so please check for the times in your state.    I have stated my views on who the best candidate is, but I respect those who disagree with me.   Do not go pulling up people’s signs or do anything disrespectful today.   We have four loyal, hardworking and intelligent candidates.   Please respect the decision of millions of people. Democracy works on respect and  a willingness to compromise for the greater good.

I was tempted to add one more blog, but I think this posting pretty well says it all (from Persuade me Politics)

https://persuademepolitics.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/donald-trump-patriot-savior-or-tyrant-part-1/

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Fact checkers

I use factcheck.org mostly, but politifact.com has nice summaries of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and others.

Other fact checkers are:

Washington Post

snopes.com

Politifact found that on the average 4% of Trump’s facts were true while 19% of Clinton’s were true.  Adding the categories of true, mostly true and half true gets Trump up to 30% while Clinto gets 75%.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Trump – a nightmare for foreign policy

Republicans who served under George W. Bush recognized that the US had to play a leadership role in the world.  I like to say, “what goes around, comes around.”

Stronger together- really does work.  Make American Great through insults to our fiends (Mexico) doesn’t work.

Enough.  Donald Trump should not be President. He should withdraw.  As a Republican I hope to support someone who has the dignity and stature to run to the highest office in the greatest democracy on earth.

Condoleezza Rice,  Former Secretary of State under George W. Bush.

Nicholas Burns was undersecretary of state for political affairs under Bush.  Here is what he said today on CNN:

I hope she’s  [Clinton] going to be the president.  If it’s Donald Trump, I think all bets are off given his unorthodox and I think, very weak and very dangerous views about Russia.  I think we can say with some certainty that Vladamir Putin and the Russian government would like Donald Trump to be elected president because Trump has been denegrating NATo; he’ll make NATPO weaker. He won’t be the strong American leader in Europe that Europeans are accustomed to.  It is clear by their actions and words that the Russians support a Donald Trump candidacy.  Every other European government, and I’ve talked to a lot of them, desperately want Hillary Clinton to be elected because they want stability and a traditional American leader and a leader who is sophisticated enough to know how the US can be effective in that region.

 I think for most Europeans and East Europeans,  Trump is a real danger to them.

Republicans working for President Bush have either remained quiet or turned their back on Trump.  Here’s a sampling:

“If Donald Trump wins, he will, by definition, have created a new template of success for Republicans,” said Ari Fleischer, Mr. Bush’s first White House press secretary. “But if he loses, and particularly if he is crushed, it will reset the party back more in the direction of President Bush.”

Because Mr. Trump represents something far greater in the eyes of the Bush veterans than just an unfortunate party nominee, their determination to defeat him has become more intense.

The vast majority of the approximately three dozen veterans of Mr. Bush’s administration contacted for this article indicated that they would not cast a ballot for Mr. Trump.

“I can count on one hand the number of people I worked with who are supporting Trump,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a former Bush State Department official who has been calling his onetime colleagues to solicit support for the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.

R. Nicholas Burns :

Nicholas Burns (born January 28, 1956) is a university professor, columnist, lecturer and former American diplomat. He is currently Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and a member of the Board of Directors of the school’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. At the Harvard Kennedy School, he is Director of The Future of Diplomacy Project and Faculty Chair for the programs on the Middle East and India and South Asia. He is Director of the Aspen Strategy Group, Senior Counselor at the Cohen Group and serves on the Board of Directors of Entegris, Inc. He writes a biweekly column on foreign affairs for the Boston Globe and is a senior foreign affairs columnist for GlobalPost.

This I promise you will be my very last post until after the election.   I also will post all comments on these issues.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Hate Comey- Love Comey – Hate Comey

The 8 day saga of Trump and Director of the FBI Comey has ended.   Saturday, Comey was wonderful, because he was investigating Clinton.   Since details were sparse, Trump could improvise.  When the investigation ended on Sunday, Trump says the system is rigged,  all the FBI investigators are liars,  and there is this gigantic conspiracy going all the way to the top.  Ridiculous!

Sunday,  Trump was blasting Comey as a horrible liar.   How could anyone in 8 days sift through 650,000 emails?   First, who says there were 650,000 emails.   The number sounded absolutely ridiculous.   Comparisons were done by computer, and  in all likelihood, there was tons of duplication or email backups.  Plus personal emails, drafts, and other documents that could be related to emails.

It isn’t hard to find duplicates.   The emails have  exact dates, to/from and other quickly identifiable information.   Director Comey does not have to provide any information on this probe, and normally there would be no need for disclosure given there are no accusations of wrong doing.  But the urgency is obviously the elections.

I really expected this was a whole lot about nothing.  The emails were on the aide’s laptop, only for the purpose of facilitating printing.

I can take a document with a million words and compare it to another similar document, and in minutes, the computer can identify the words that are different.  If I had a faster computer, this would be done in seconds.   It’s done every day, in fact when people are modifying documents.

So,  Trump should man up and admit he lost.   When the investigation looked like it was going to help Trump, Comey could do no wrong.  Now Comey is the enemy and gets the full Trump barrage.

Comey’s Letter:

Dear Messrs. Chairmen:

I write to supplement my October 28, 2016 letter that notified you the FBI would be taking additional investigative steps with respect to former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a personal email server. Since my letter, the FBI investigative team has been working around the clock to process and review a large volume of emails from a device obtained in connection with an unrelated criminal investigation. During that process, we reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State.

Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.

I am very grateful to the professionals at the FBI for doing an extraordinary amount of high-quality work in a short period of time.

Sincerely yours,
James B. Comey
Director

Stay tuned,

Dave