Election 2016 Newsletter

Introduction: The last two weeks of political writing from Kauai has proven considerably more relaxing than any writing I have done from my office today?

This is our 10th update, and I do look forward to the 9th of November when I can publish our election results and my thoughts on 12 weeks of objective poll analysis. I noticed it has been 600 days since Ted Cruz announced that he would be running for President of the USA on March 23rd 2015. I am relieved that I started this series with only 12 weeks to go to the election. This topic can easily be all consuming!

The week has been filled with allegations of rigged, phony, corrupt, despicable, dishonest and disgusting about the media. As a member of the media, albeit new media, I do take offense at being lumped with these terms. It seems to me that any time the media reports anything negative about any political candidate, that the media person involved is automatically damned. This morning reached new heights of how apolitical and money focused the media really is.

Fox News: Megyn Kelly: Accused by Newt Gingrich, surrogate for the Trump campaign of being "fascinated by sex and not interested in public policy". Makes the allegation Fox News is a surrogate for Trump's campaign foolish.
MSNBC: Mika Brzezinski: Chooses to focus on wiki-leaks exposing Obama's possible earlier knowledge of Clinton's private eMail server.

If there were ever two topics Fox and MSBNC, the strongest right and strongest left media biased channels that exist, would want to avoid, it would be these?

The media covers what they think will get our attention, for this is how it makes its profits.

Weeks News: Another week dominated by politics, and little attention to the realities of the world we live in.

Chicago: Cubs make world series final ....

Trump: Gettysburg: Announces first 6 acts as president; introduced by promise to sue all ladies who have confronted his predatory sexual conduct; unusual!
Clinton: WikiLeaks: 1000's of eMails released each day; what a window into politcal campaigns; information being spun both ways; plenty to find pro and con both sides!
Obamacare: Average increase 23%; Nevada increase 17.51%; a material tax on those who earn more than $62,500.00; a subsidy for those who earn less!
Rigged: the media; the elite; the election; the polls; unless you are winning!

Mosul: we can only pray for those fighting for our security; and for all those affected!

Update: This weeks FiveThirtyEight's election forecast: Clinton 81.7% - down from - Clinton 84.0%

If Trump wins AZ, OH, FL, NC, which is a stretch (OH leans red, others lean blue) Trump would still need 10 electoral votes to reach the 270 required to win.

At the same time, despite the early voting polls - see link below - and showing consistent with the traditional polls - there is a 15% chance that the alt-media polls, which predict Trump to win, are correct.


The electoral map, and polling margins in the swing states, have closed again since the 3rd debate.

Data: We have created three apolitical web pages that provide accurate information on where the race stands.

i) Electoral map: Can Trump Get 270 Electoral Votes
The map is updated each Tuesday evening with cumulative poll data from Real Clear Politics.

Latest Projection: Trump 187: Clinton 278 (excluding states where spread is too close to call)

ii) Trend Analysis: Road to The Presidency
The trend table has 13 rows. One for each week leading up to the election.

Latest Trend: Clinton down from 84.0% to 81.7%.

iii) Swing States: Analysis of Swing States
This page has the same table as the national prediction, 16 battleground states representing 200 electoral votes.

Pages include links to Real Clear Politics, and FiveThirty Eight, for those looking to dig deeper.

Editorial Opinion

One of the the more important reasons I have heard for voting for one or other candidate, although usually from conservatives, is to the matter of appointment of Supreme Court justices.

Members of the United States Senate may serve an unlimited number of six-year terms. Members of the House of Representatives may serve an unlimited number of two-year terms. This means that there is a theoretical opportunity for the electorate to remove any member of the house each two years, and any senator each 6 years. I say theoretical as gerrymandering is rife. Which does allow a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries.

The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment.

The issue: If a President was to appoint, and the senate to confirm, an "activist" judge, this judge could influence the interpretation of constitutional issue in the USA for a lengthy period.

I have heard concern that the 2nd amendment might be repealed, or that Christians might be denied freedom of worship if liberal judges were appointed. I have heard concern that heard that Roe vs. Wade, and the right of LGBT marriage might be denied if conservative judges were appointed. What I objectively can hear are genuine and legitimate concerns by the groups of people affected. Although it I do find the level of concern to be very slanted to the specific issues of different groups.

I am not going to comment here on how "real" these concerns practically are.

I will research this matter further for it falls into the category of what might happen. Which is a category of future events, easily influenced by fear, that is near impossible to prove or disprove!

Facts: In U.S. history, one justice was impeached, but not convicted, and one justice resigned under the threat of impeachment.
Facts: Of the 159 nominations for Supreme Court Justice that presidents have submitted to the Senate for confirmation, the Senate has rejected only 12. The first rejection was George Washington's nomination of John Rutledge to be Chief Justice in 1795; the last, Ronald Reagan’s nominee for Associate Justice, Robert H. Bork, in 1987.
Facts: I suggest a read of the following information on what is required to change our constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I have been told that the Chief Justices could vote politically. I am the first to agree that there have been activist justices who have voted politically. But I hesitate to allege that our Supreme Court Justices will be materially influenced by political thinking. The constitution can not be changed, but was designed to be amended by amendments. See above for the process of doing this, and the amendments made to date. I suggest we are often too quick to impugn people and motives we do not know that much about.

I am reminded of Chief Justice who broke ranks with the "expected" politically conservative position and ruled in favor of Obamacare. I see no evidence that he allowed his conservative politics to affect his interpretation of the constitution.


I am going to read a recent book by Justice Stephen Breyer; The Court and the World. I heard Justice Breyer being interviewed on Sunday and was surprised to hear that his biggest concerns for the Supreme Court in the next 7 years were; America's role in International matters; and the complexity of information privacy laws in the new era of social media.

I hope that our next President will include these two matters as they consider their criteria for any Supreme Court nominations.

Get Smart about Politics™