U.S. President Donald Trump greets supporters as he holds a campaign rally in Londonderry, New Hampshire, U.S., August 28, 2020. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Three senior Trump advisers who recently talked to campaign manager Bill Stepien walked away believing he thinks they will lose.
The big picture: The Trump campaign is filled with internal blaming and pre-spinning of a potential loss, accelerating a dire mood that's driven by a daily barrage of bleak headlines, campaign and White House officials tell me.
* "A lot of this is the president himself," one adviser said. "You can't heal a patient who doesn't want to take the diagnosis."
Behind the scenes: In weekly pep talks, Stepien tells staff members why they shouldn't pay attention to the perennially horrible public polls — and how they can "win the week" and the campaign.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: When you have The Economist predicting this .... '9% chance' of winning electoral college (The Economist). It is then hard to believe that President Trump can win. So if the above Axios is accurate, that tells me that Trump's campaign team are convinced that they are going to lose Florida, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. States that they won in 2016. Is that possible? You tell me.
Update: Rasmussen Daily Tracking is saying that 48% of likely voters approve of President Trump's performance (link here). President Obama was tracking a 50% approval rating at the same time in his campaign in 2012.
Update #2: The most accurate pollster for 2016 and 2018 is Robert C. Cahaly and he sees the following .... President Trump in the lead in Florida, Michigan, and Arizona. Only slightly behind in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If true, this will mean the re-election of President Trump.
4 comments:
We are always braced for a defeat every presidential election. In that way we are almost Russian.
Bob Dole
Bush 2000
John McCain
Romney
* John McCain was ahead after the convention and then in September he suspended his campaign. Bye bye lead. He might have lost it anyway, but it was disappointing nonetheless.
Romney was leading after the 1st debate, then he let the debate moderator fact check him and she was wrong. Romney never recovered.
* After Candy Crowley did her 'fact check' to help Obama, we have never trusted debate moderators since. THis is 3 years before Trump.
* Bush 2000 was close.
* We believe with good reason that polls are propaganda to shape public opinion not measure it. Which is why Republicans do not get worked up about polls before Labor Day. Now it seems that polling companies are taking out a page out of the book of marketing companies. Just like Madison avenue stiff armed Fox News although it had higher ratings and paid no price, pollsters might be following suit.
So yes we are pessimistic, but we are still going to vote Trump.
THE PESSIMISTIC RUSSIAN. - ProQuest Research Librarysearch.proquest.com › openview
Thus pessinmiwl is the distinctive attribute universally applied to Russia, and yet ... embodies the Russian soil-a nature which is open, rich, luxurious, receptive, ...
https://search.proquest.com/openview/2c87c33d05bebf38/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=14004
The Economist - Bolshevik scum
The Economist/Axios and Rasmussen/Cahaly can't both be right. I suppose we will "know" who is right after the election.
With that said based upon the track records of the entities involved I would tend to go with what Cahaly and Rasmussen are reporting as accurate and the Economist and Axios as being inaccurate. While we could stop here, there are other factors.
The Axios "scoop" is based on anonymous sources making it impossible to verify. Furthermore actions speak louver than words and the Trump campaign is not acting like a team that thinks they are going to lose. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. If the Economist and the other polls really were accurate and a blue wave is coming we'd expect the Democrats to be positively giddy. Instead they seem to be really uptight. Based upon their actions it doesn't appear that either side really believes either Axios or the Economist and are acting based upon the belief that Cahaly and Rasmussen are accurate.
Also, the in your face nature by which the media reports the "polls" is similar to a "thou doest protest much" approach. It's as though they don't really believe these polls but are instead trying to convince themselves and the public that they are accurate.
Essentially Cahaly and Rasmussen are likely right with the Economist and the Axios "scoop" are likely wrong. Based upon how key decision makers are acting strongly suggests this. We will "know" for certain after the election.
If the media keeps on interfering in the election, namely Twitter and Facebook suppressing the oldest and largest(by circulation) newspaper in the USA on the hunter Biden China corruption scandal, WHILE China kills your own people and robs you blind, then there will be blood in the streets
You cannot do this
Jack Dorsey should resign and so should Mark Zuckerberg for again and again suppressing anything that sheds light on the depth of the corruption in the Democrat party, their ticket and their previous collusion and treasonous acts to commit a COUP on a duly elected president
It is so severe that if I were an American, I would treat it as an act of war
Post a Comment