Election 2024: A Historically Unconventional Race

The presidential race is thundering toward the finish line in the most inconceivable American election.  Donald Trump has been the target of two assassination attempts.  Kamala Harris carries the Democratic Party banner without the benefit of being elected by primary voters.  

Acts of political violence are a stain on American politics since the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.  Through the decades, three presidents have been killed and there have been seven presidential assassination attempts and the murder of Democrat candidate Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. 

Another distinction of this election, Trump is the only presidential candidate who is a convicted felon.  Although even Democrats have dropped the reference because independents and Republicans are convinced the verdict was produced by a sham trial, it hovers over the presidential race. 

Vice President Harris holds the Democratic Party distinction of the only nominee to not receive a single primary vote since Vice President Hubert Humphrey in 1968.  Humphrey's nomination at the Democratic National Convention ended with his defeat to Richard Nixon.   

President Joe Biden after campaigning for more than a year dropped out on July 21, barely four months until election day.  A humbling debate performance cleared the way for Harris to assume the mantle.  Theories continue to ruminate about what prompted Biden's abrupt about face.

With the election in the homestretch, the polls continue to show the outcome will likely be decided by hundreds of thousands of voters in a few so-called swing states.  On the bellwether list: Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and Nevada.  

In 2020, Biden's victory in those states cleared the way for his election. He won those six states by a total popular vote of 312,362.   In Pennsylvania, the Democrat won by 81,660 votes out of more than 3 million ballots case.  He carried Wisconsin by a slimmer margin, 20,682 votes and Nevada by 33,596.

Razor-thin vote margins in Arizona (10,457) and Georgia (11,779) benefited Biden.  Even Michigan, a charter member of the Big Blue Wall named for traditionally voting Democrat, gave Biden a comparatively slim edge of 154,188 votes out of more than 5 million ballots.  

Consider that the 2020 race was decided by less than 400,000 votes out of 158 million ballots cast.  Turnout was seven percentage points higher than the 2016 election.  A record 66% of citizens voted in the election. Some experts are forecasting higher turnout this cycle.

The two candidates are crisscrossing paths with each other ending up in the same state on the same day as they deliver their closing arguments in swing state voters.  A shift in a scintilla of votes could end up titling the election to Harris or Trump.  Dueling camps have bombarded the air waves with attack ads.

What started out as an election about issues, has descended into the junk yard politics mantra: Negative sells.  Trump is painted as Adolf Hitler, who murdered six million Jews and started a world war.  The caricature has been responsible for fueling a toxic political divide that threatens to rupture the country.

Trump has branded Harris a socialist and critiqued her intellect in demeaning language.  His early reference to Harris' racial ethnicity cringed even his supporters.  Both candidates are covered in mud and the voters are left in the quandary of selecting the person with the fewest smudges.  

Unsurprisingly,  national polls reveal the race is deadlocked with less than two weeks until Election Day.  Looking under the hood of the polls, there are positive and negative signs for both campaigns.  Polls agree on one point: Harris and Trump both have above average unfavorable ratings. 

Worrisome for the team Harris is that she is underperforming with key demographics that were responsible for Biden's narrow win.  She has lost support among Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, particularly men in those demographics.  If the trend continues, it will not bode well for Harris.

Trump is behind with college graduates and suburban women.  Abortion is proving to be an issue that still moves the needle with swaths of voters across party lines.  It was a crucial wedge issue in the 2022 midterms and could once again cleve Trump support among independents. 

Mail-in voting, a tool used extensively during the Covid-era election of 2020, is trending lower.  It turned out to be a boon for Democrats, but at least early signs don't indicate it will be as robust this year. However, early voting is on pace to break records, galloping ahead of 2020 and 2016 levels.

Political watchers are noticing early voting among Republicans is outperforming Democrats, a once unthinkable outcome. Republicans have traditionally preferred to cast ballots on Election Day.  

On election night, the early results in Pennsylvania will offer a clue to the remainder of the evening.  Biden banked 36.2 percent more early votes than Trump in 2020 to offset Republicans voting advantage on Election Day.  If Harris falls below 25%, it will be a clunker of a start to a long agonizing evening. 

The final tally could take days, since Arizona and Nevada are notoriously slow reporting results. Whatever the outcome, expect fireworks from the losing side.  Candidates have accused each other of being a threat to Democracy. There will be no gracious concession speeches.

Adding to the turbulence is revelations by U.S. spy agencies that foreign actors are using covert influence campaigns to interfere in the election. Intelligence indicates Russia, Iran and China are sewing discord and disinformation. Expect the losing candidate to point to election interference as a factor in their defeat.  

Campaign rancor and the divisive cultural chasm have the makings of a potential power keg in the election aftermath. The nation's temperature is north of 98.6 degrees. Let's pray for decorum in the name of saving democracy.  We should all want a peaceful end to this fractious election.  

An Election Like No Other In American History

This presidential election is unprecedented.  One candidate has mostly campaigned from his basement, appearing publicly as often as a ground hog.  The incumbent has crisscrossed America in the midst of a pandemic.  More Americans are voting by mail than ever before. And vote tabulations may take months.   

Talk about crazy.  The Coronavirus outbreak turned political conventions into virtual events robbing the parties of must-see television.  The presidential debates were chaotic, raising the question if they will become a relic of the past.  A mask evolved into the symbol of a party.  Forget donkeys and elephants.

Not since the 1918 midterm election have Americans trooped to the polls during an epidemic.  Despite the Spanish Flu that resulted in the deaths of millions worldwide, voters ignored the perils of the contagion and showed up in person to cast their ballots.  Patriotic duty was a higher calling in those times.

The U.S. Election Project, run by Professor Michael McDonald at the University of Florida, estimates more than 93.1 million Americans voted by November 1.  About 34 million voters braved long lines to tap the screens of electronic machines.  More than 59 million mail-in ballots have been returned.  

The data suggests a historic turnout of voters in this presidential election. Based on the Election Project's projections total turnout may exceed 150 million, compared to 138 million in 2016.  If that happens, it will mean 62% of eligible voters will submit ballots.  In 2016, 58.7% of registered voters cast ballots.

However, those lofty estimates are based on past voting behavior when turnout on election day is usually robust. That may not be the case this election. No one knows if the convenience of mail-in voting will alter the annual election day stampede to the polls. November 3 could prove to be a historic anomaly.

There is partisan debate over which candidate benefits most from a large turnout.  A Gallup Poll conducted in July reported 32% of voters identified as Democrats, while 26% were Republican.  However, when you include those who lean toward one party or the other, Democrats have a 21% margin.  

Polls, usually closely watched in presidential elections, have lost much of their cache after their research was thoroughly discredited in the wake of President Trump's thumping of Hillary Clinton.  Pollsters had Clinton winning by a double-digit margin.  Both campaigns are gulping grains of salt with the polls.

Even a few pollsters are proclaiming that if their data is wrong again the industry will suffer a black-eye that will leave permanent damage to their credibility.  Polls have been politicized just like everything else in the country, which accounts for the large dose of public skepticism.   

According to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Democrat Joe Biden should be polishing up his acceptance speech right now.  The polls as of November 1 have the former veep clinging to a seven percentage point lead.  However, Biden's lead has slipped from the 10.3% point edge on October 11. 

In the battleground states, the two candidates are running neck-and-neck.  Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan are rated toss ups in the polls with neither candidate holding a solid lead.  In the last election, Mr. Trump picked off a few states that had been Democrat strongholds.

Especially in tight races, the votes of African-Americans and Hispanics likely will tilt the outcome.  There are worrisome signs for Democrats. Mr. Trump captured 8% of the black vote and 29% of Hispanics in 2016, which was enough to beat Ms. Clinton by razor-thin margins in Rust Belt states.

An Emerson College poll shows Mr. Trump increasing his margin with both key groups.  The latest figures have 19% of African-Americans voting for the incumbent and 41% of Hispanics.  If those percentages hold on election day, it will make Mr. Biden's ascension to the Oval Office more difficult. 

The turnout among voters 18-29 will be closely watched too. Former President Obama racked up solid majorities in this demographic which voted in record numbers. However, turnout collapsed in the Trump-Clinton race. The question lingers if the 77-year old Biden can energize turnout among young people. 

Perhaps, the biggest question of 2020 is this one: Will high turnout result in the over representation of older, white voters relative to their share of the population? This group provided Mr. Trump with an edge in the 2016 election. But defections among this group could be the Achilles Heel for his campaign.

One miscalculation by Democrats may turn out to be fatal.  The Biden-Harris camp has turned the election into a a referendum on Mr. Trump's handling of the Coronavirus.  According to Gallup, the top issue with 90% of voters is the economy.  The virus ranks fifth, behind terrorism, healthcare and crime.

Mr. Trump received a pre-election bump with third quarter data showing a 33% rise in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a proxy for the country's economic growth.  The surge means that the American economy has clawed back most of its pandemic losses, sitting now at 3.5% below the year-end for 2019.

Polls do not tell you who will actually vote.  All that matters in every presidential election is which candidate is most effective in turning out their respective political bases.  In every election, there are turnout surprises and this one is guaranteed to be no different. 

However, headed into election day Pew Research Center's latest survey of registered voters shows an 11-percentage point "enthusiasm" gap between the two candidates.  Of those supporting Biden, 57% are "strong" backers.  Mr. Trump fares better with 68% of his likely voters expressing "strong" support. 

If media still matters, then Biden should get a boost from the fawning news coverage his campaign has been accorded.  Evening newscasts on ABC, NBC and CBS are significantly more negative toward President Trump, according to The Media Research Center (MRC).

The research group analyzed every episode of the three networks evening news from July 29 through October 20 and found 91% of Mr. Trump's coverage was negative.  Meanwhile, Biden had a 66% positive score.  Since Inauguration Day in 2017, MRC noted 90% of the Trump coverage has been negative.

When the voting tabulation begins November 3, expect agonizingly slow reporting of results in many states. Likely, more than a few states will be understaffed in verifying signatures on mail-in ballots. Three states are allowing mail-in ballot counting to continue past election day, further impeding timely results.

Both campaigns have assembled armies of lawyers and poll watchers to scour the nation sniffing for signs of voter suppression, ballot harvesting and mail-in ballot rejections.  Both sides already have been tussling in courts over mail-in voting. Presume a wave of court challenges and recounts after November 3. 

In the end, this campaign may not be decided by the voters.  It may come down to the candidate with the best legal team.  This bizarre election will likely lurch into the Twilight Zone.  The winner may not be known for weeks or months.  What else would you expect in 2020?

A Surreal Presidential Race Gets Stranger

President Trump is not running against former Vice President Joe Biden, no matter what the ballot reads. Even Democrat voters admit the election has less to do with their candidate.  This election pits President Trump versus Donald Trump.  Running against yourself is a first in modern political history

The recent Democratic Party National Convention focused on Mr. Trump at the expense of their candidate. It was a hate-fest loaded with speaker-after-speaker who skewered the man with the orange tan. Each word dripped vitriol.  Mr. Trump was the devil in disguise with the bad comb-over.

For a majority of Democrats, their candidate might as well not exist. (And he mostly has been MIA.) They have only one candidate: ABT (Anybody But Trump). The party, since 2016, has targeted removing him from office by whatever means necessary.  Now they have a legitimate opportunity.

And let's face it, Joe Biden was not the party faithful's first choice. His resume includes two failed races for the White House.  He was trailing in the early primaries before the power brokers anointed him their guy to avoid a potential election disaster with socialist Bernie Sanders heading the ticket. 

Even former President Obama dawdled until the race was settled before endorsing his former veep, whose campaign lacked the electricity of Sanders. Biden allies are still flustered over Mr. Obama's betrayal when he embraced Hillary Clinton as his successor.  Perhaps, Mr. Obama knew Mr. Biden is unelectable.       

Mr. Biden has the charisma of a turnip.  And that's unkind to turnips. He shuffles on stage wearing a mask.  His speeches ramble. His mental flubs are legendary.  The few media interviews he has granted end in nonsensical malapropisms. He seldom ventures outside his basement to face questions.

Let's pause here for the Democrat response.  None of this matters. People loath Donald Trump.  He is the opposite of likable, kindly Joe. A reckless, strident, narcissist.  He is a science denier who allowed a virus to bring America to its knees.  He is a racist and unpresidential. And have you seen his Tweets? Gag!

Whipping up pathological revulsion for the enemy may work for Democrats.  But party leaders are clearly worried about voter enthusiasm.  That is why Sen. Kamala Harris was tapped for the second spot on the ticket.  Democrats keep reminding us she is a "woman of color."  I guess no one has ever seen her photo.

Now the newly minuted vice presidential candidate is front and center in the campaign.  Sen. Harris is likely to be the face of the Democratic Party presidential race, relegating Mr. Biden to appear groundhog-like from his bunker.  The strategy certainly appears to be on target with voters.

After Biden became the apparent nominee, polls showed the 77-year-old with a double digit lead.  Some had the former Delaware senator 15 points ahead of the president.  Now the polls are tightening with 65 days until the election and a wave of panic has risen, a disturbing  reminder of what happened in 2016.

A clear majority (58%) of Democrats say their vote is mostly "about opposing Trump."  Only three in ten Democrats (36%) admit their decision to vote for Biden is more about their candidate.  In comparison, 74% of Trump voters say they are backing their candidate rather than opposing Mr. Biden.

The nonpartisan Pew Research Center's latest survey underscores the shifting tide nationwide.  Mr. Biden currently enjoys an eight point lead, but it was 10 points a few months ago.  The Real Clear Politics average of all polls has Biden ahead by eight percentage points, down from a 10 point margin.

Just when giddy Democrats were popping champagne corks, the latest Rasmussen Reports national presidential poll was released at the end of last week.  It showed Mr. Biden holding a razor-thin lead over President Trump: 46% to 45%.  What was a runaway election, suddenly looks like a squeaker.    

Several polls rate some of the most important swing states as toss-ups after Mr. Biden was ahead in earlier research. The two candidates are virtually tied in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  Since the election is decided by the Electoral College, state polls are a better barometer than national surveys. 

Mr. Biden's slippage can partly be attributed to a growing suspicion among voters about his diminished mental capacity. Political research firm  Zogby International polled 1,007 likely voters and found that 55% believe Mr. Obama's former wingman "is in the early stages of dementia."

A breakdown of the results shows 55% of independent voters and 32% of Democrats agree with the premise of intellectual impairment. Even worse for Democrats, a majority of women (50%) are on board too. Women are a key demographic for the Democrat presidential candidate.  

Democrats who suggest the subject of Mr. Biden's dementia is off limits have convenient amnesia.  The party and its candidates openly questioned President Ronald Reagan's mental capacity during his campaign for a second term.  No one thought it was inappropriate given his age.

For the record, Mr. Reagan was 77-years old when he left office in January, 1989.  Mr. Biden will be the exact same age on January 20, when he will be sworn in if he wins the presidential office.  At the time of his election, Mr. Trump was age 70. 

Of course, Democrats have trashed Mr. Trump's mental acuity since his election and every day since.  The man is certifiably bat poop crazy, their lackeys in the media hee-haw at every opportunity.  If mental health is legitimate issue for Mr. Trump, then it certainly should be applicable to Mr. Biden.

Voters even predict Mr. Biden will not serve out his first term, if elected.  The latest Rasmussen Reports national survey finds 59% of likely voters believe the former veep's running mate will become president before the first term concludes.  That includes a near majority (49%) of his own party's voters.

So Democrats have to wonder.  How does a politician who voters believe may be mentally unfit and too old to serve out a four-year term appeal to the electorate? The current strategy appears to be avoiding the media except for the occasional friendly MSNBC or CNN interview, while Sen. Harris shines.  

There so many other strange qualities about this race.  The Coronavirus has shutdown the normal campaigning that flourishes at this juncture in the race.  Virtual campaigning is a non sequitur. The excitement of a crowd is missing.  There is little emotion. Interest is dwindling among the electorate.

If you doubt that assessment, consider the viewership for recent political conventions.  Both parties failed to garner the same audience ratings as they did in 2016.  Interestingly, the most watched evening of the Democratic Convention was the night former First Lady Michelle Obama spoke.   

The Coronavirus also has stolen Mr. Trump's secret campaign weapon: large indoor rallies.  His packed rallies in 2016 built voter enthusiasm and turned political elections on its head. No one had campaigned that way, eschewing media advertising for the most part to increase turnout. 

Both parties are anguishing over voter turnout, the key to winning any election. Since Trump voters are more motivated according to polling, that cannot be good news for Democrats.  They are counting on Trump Derangement Syndrome to galvanize their legions to return their mail ballots.

Issues have taken a backseat to hatred.  The Democrats top theme is how Mr. Trump bungled the handling of the Coronavirus. With many schools still closed and businesses struggling to reopen, the Democrats are mining the rich vein of anger about the seemingly endless quarantine regime.

However, Democrats have served up a prime issue for Republicans. Incessant rioting in Democrat-controlled cities and the steady march to defund police departments has struck a chord with many voters. Republicans are drumbeating the issue of "law and order," a winner in past elections.   

In the aftermath of rioting, Mr. Trump's approval rating soared to 52% last week in a Zogby analytics poll.  "The president has recorded his best job approval rating on record," said pollster Jonathan Zogby.  Mr. Trump's job rating among African-Americans climbed to 36%, an alarming trend for Mr. Biden.     

Despite the news, Democrats are maintaining a facade of confidence. Mr. Biden has already hinted at some of his likely cabinet choices, including the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. His minions probably are considering ideas for redecorating the Oval Office. He is a shoo-in.

In fact, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently shocked some political pundits when she openly suggested Mr. Biden should skip the presidential debates.  "I don't think there should be any debates," she said, claiming President Trump will make any confrontation "an exercise in skullduggery."

With a comfortable lead in national polls, other Democrats share Ms. Pelosi's opinion but have expressed their views privately.  They picture the debates as a lose-lose proposition for Mr. Biden.  They don't trust him on the debate stage because of his penchant for verbal mischief and think he will be bested by Trump.  

That may explain why Democrats are preparing for the worst.  Two organizations with Democrat fingerprints have been formed with the mission of ensuring Mr. Trump leaves office when he is vanquished and preserving election integrity.  The groups are Stand Up America and Indivisible Action.

Despite their stated purpose, some suspect their real intent is to unleash a storm of protests if Mr. Trump wins the election.  One of their leaders admitted on One America News that his group would stir up chaos about the results, raising issues about outside interference in the election.  Sound familiar?

And the Biden campaign has assembled a group of 600 lawyers and thousands of others to prepare for possible "chicanery" in the November election. According to his campaign, about 10,000 volunteers have signed on to stake-out polling places.  That seems odd in light of Democrat focus on mail-in voting.

An anticipated record number of mail-in ballots raises the specter of delays in announcing the state results on election night.  In a tightly contested race, this could drag on for weeks or even months. It heightens the prospect of a contentious political legal battle like the nation has never experienced.

That would be the capstone on this surreal presidential race.     

Ten Questions For Robert Mueller

Someone from Robert Mueller's team of Democrat partisans likely leaked a lengthy list of questions the special counsel wants President Trump to answer.  The disclosure appeared in the New York Times, which labeled the queries "tantalizing" and hinted at a widening probe of obstruction.

Democrats cheered the unauthorized leak from a supposedly secret investigation.  They are convinced Mueller's final report will lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings against the president.  Democrats have made no secret this is part of a scheme to overturn the election results.

While the special prosecutor runs amok, the Times and other media have never raised a single question about Mueller's ethical conduct or his prosecutorial tactics.  However, at least two federal judges recently scolded Mueller for his unethical handling of the ever expanding probe.

In the interest of fair play, Congress should issue its own list of questions for Mueller, who has strayed far afield from his mandate to expose Russian election collusion.  Here are some suggestions for areas of interest to infuriated Americans who are watching Mueller's investigation with dismay:

1.  How much has your investigation cost American taxpayers?  The Justice Department has refused to release the amount.  Only when a watchdog group sued the DOJ did Americans learn that in one five-month period in 2017 (May 17-September 30) the price tag was more than $1 million per day.

2.  Why did you launch your investigation of Russian interference in the election three months before you received a memo outlining the scope of your probe from the Department of Justice?  Why hasn't the DOJ publicly released an unredacted copy of the memo?  What is the DOJ hiding?

3.  Why did you indict former Trump campaign member Paul Manafort on 12-year old fraud charges totally unrelated to Russian collusion or the election?  A judge chided you for lodging the indictment simply to force him to rat out the president.  Does this constitute unethical prosecutorial conduct?

4.  Why have so many leaks appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post when your refuse to publicly answer any Congressional questions about the investigation?  Are you using your position to malign the president in the media because you have no proof of collusion?

5.  Some leaked information suggests you are concerned about why President Trump fired your long-time friend and confidant James Comey as director of the FBI.  Do you realize that under the Constitution the president can fire anyone who works for him without cause? This is not a crime.

6. Did the DOJ sanction your role in the FBI raid on the offices and hotel room of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen?  Why did you turn over the investigation to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York?  If this was unrelated to Russian collusion, why were you involved?

7.  Was it ethical for a throng of FBI agents with guns drawn to raid the home of Manafort in the middle of the night?  Had Manafort refused to allow a search of his premises prompting the midnight attack?  Judges have reprimanded prosecutors for a lot less.

8.  Wasn't Michael Flynn the subject of abusive unmasking by the Obama Administration after his communications were unintentionally intercepted as part of a foreign counterintelligence operation?  Doesn't this taint your entire probe of Mr. Flynn?  Would any judge allow this evidence in court?

9.  Did you withhold evidence about the FISA court from the attorneys for Flynn during your prosecution of the former National Security Adviser?  Was Flynn advised that a Democrat paid-for dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to eavesdrop on his communications?

10.  Recently-fired deputy head of FBI counterintelligence Peter Strzok was unceremoniously dumped from your investigative team in July of last year yet you waited until December to disclose his departure.  Was this part of a cover up to protect Strzok from being fired by the FBI?

The current special counsel's inquiry has far reaching constitutional repercussions.  Unless Mueller is held to account for his deportment, it will set a precedent for out of control, never ending investigations of sitting presidents.  Is that any way to run a Democracy?

Democrats thinly veiled coup attempt is destined to fail.  When it does, it will be interesting to watch if the party changes its tune if a future Democrat president must deal with a special counsel probe.  Constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz has sounded an alarm on the use of special prosecutors.

Speaking to an audience in Dallas, the former Harvard law professor said: "They (Western Democracies) don't appoint a special counsel and tell them 'Get that guy...that's what they did in the Soviet Union."

America doesn't need an unelected outsider to police our Democracy against collusion with foreign governments.  Congress, the CIA, FBI and DOJ are all charged with that responsibility.  The use of a special counsel is a crutch that will cripple Democracy.  It's time to end the Mueller debacle.

What Trump's Election Means

Political insiders, pundits, well-heeled lobbyists and pollsters were dead wrong.  They were certain Hillary Clinton would win the presidency in an epic landslide.  Americans would never elect Donald Trump, a man they spent 18 months dismissing as unfit to occupy the Oval Office.

The problem is every single one of these know-it-alls is out-of-touch with real Americans.  The inside-the-Beltway crowd talks only to each other.  Meanwhile, out in fly over country, those bitter clingers who had been mocked by the media were spoiling to rewrite electoral history    

An anti-establishment tide was sweeping America and none of the political big shots took notice. Americans no longer considered the media mainstream.  There was palpable anger against institutions, including Wall Street, giant banks, global corporations and the federal government.

Americans had no love for the hidebound cliques who dominated both political parties.  Their distrust fueled two anti-establishment candidates, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.  Republican and Democrat barons pooh-poohed their chances and connived to keep them from primary victory.

Democrats rigged the primary to deny Sanders.  Republican emperors savaged Mr. Trump and his supporters.  The lords of the GOP had surrogates working behind the scenes to crater the Trump campaign to no avail.  They never recognized their base had changed right before their eyes.

Make no mistake: this victory by Donald Trump was a rejection of the Washington establishment and everything it stands for.  Americans of both parties are sick and tired of being ignored, taken-for-granted and being flimflammed by special interests who sway decision-making in Congress.

Equally as important, Mr. Trump's election means there are new rules for winning the presidency. Rule number one: money isn't everything. Ms. Clinton outspent her opponent nearly 100-to-one, raising a record $1 billion in campaign cash.  Money can no longer purchase the White House.

All those bucks are needed to pay for waves of political advertising. Political consultants worship negative advertising aimed at smearing the opponent.  This time it didn't work.  Ms. Clinton owned television, but her vicious ads were ineffective especially in swing states.

The conventional political calculus has always been that a ground game wins general elections. Door-knocking, robot calls, yard signs and political store front offices were supposed to be an advantage. The political nobility chuckled that huge candidate rallies were nothing more than eye candy.

Mr. Trump proved his unconventional approach to campaigning not only attracted crowds, but energized voters to turnout.  By comparison, Ms. Clinton spoke at half-filled venues speckled with unenthusiastic automatons.  That should have been a red flag to anyone paying attention.

Mr. Trump's win also deals a blow to pollsters and their research. Americans have been brainwashed by the media about the science of taking the temperature of voters.  Polling is fraught with errors, especially when the results can be skewed by those conducting the research.

Campaigns will continue to use polling, but they would be well advised to place little faith in the results.  There is no substitute for hearing from real people, face-to-face.  Fewer people are even willing to talk to telephone researchers, which renders traditional polling methods obsolete.

The election results also smashed to smithereens the hollowed cliche no candidate can win the presidency without the Latino and African-American vote.  Eight years ago the political elite were convinced white voters no longer mattered.   The "white" GOP was history.

It turns out white voters still make up 73.5 percent of registered voters. They remain the majority. Ignoring that reality is political folly. Demographics are changing and at some point the numbers may shift, too. However, right now minorities remain the minority.

The biggest loser this election was the media cabal.  Every newspaper and television outlet conspired to influence voters by tilting news coverage in favor of Ms. Clinton. It utterly failed. Traditional media has lost its political clout.  Social media and cable news are the new political kingmakers.  

Honest historians, an oxymoron if there ever was one, should reach two conclusions about the 2016 election.  Voters renounced the establishment and signaled that the old political formula is no longer relevant.  Change is sweeping America, but few in the political intelligentsia saw it coming.

Who Will Win the Presidential Election?

This presidential election, unlike any other in recent history, defies conventional political calculations. For that reason, Americans are advised to ignore the polls, pundit predictions and electoral math. The truth is there are too many variables to accurately forecast the election outcome.

The latest stunning twist in this bizarre election was the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announcement last week that it was reopening its probe into Hillary Clinton's email scandal.  Never in American history has a candidate for the presidency been investigated twice by the FBI.

This development and unproven allegations of Donald Trump's sexual misconduct have thrust the election into unchartered waters.  For the first time in recent memory, surveys show voters are decidedly despondent and disgusted.  Some Americans say they plan to vote for neither candidate.

An ABC News tracking poll identified enthusiasm gaps for both candidates.  "As a percentage of voting age population, it (turnout) will be low, probably lower than the past four or five presidential elections," according to Matthew Dowd, an ABC News political analyst.

There are other variables that are even harder to quantify.  Both candidates have corpulent negative favorability numbers that have never been seen in a presidential race.  Will that be enough to motivate Americans to vote against one candidate or the other?

Questions also have been raised about turnout among African-Americans and Hispanics.  In the 2012 presidential election, turnout among blacks topped 66 percent, eclipsing 2008's 65.2 percent. Hispanic turnout in 2008 reached a historic 49.9 percent, but slid to 48% in 2012.

These two demographics groups voted overwhelming for Barrack Obama. Ninety-five percent of African-Americans voted for the president in 2012.  The president won 82 percent of the Hispanic vote that year.  He racked up similar margins in 2008.

Will the record turnout and lopsided margin for Mr. Obama be the same for Ms. Clinton?  Especially in swing states, African-Americans and Hispanics will hold the key to victory. Any slippage in turnout or margin will open the door for the Republican Donald Trump.

Right behind minorities in importance are young people aged 18-29. These adults turned out in record numbers in 2008 and 2012.  More than half (51%) of young voters flocked to the polls in 2008, the highest since the election of 1964.  Will these fickle voters remain engaged this year?

In both elections where Mr. Obama was on the ballot, young adults gave him comfortable margins. He collected 61 and 62 percent, respectively, in the elections of 2008 and 2012.  Will young voters support the Democrat nominee at those same levels this year?

Answers to those questions will go a long way in deciding this presidential election.  However, there is one group that has escaped media attention that likely will be the most influential in determining the next president.  They are unmarried women.

According to the Voter Participation Data Center, unmarried women are the country's fastest growing demographic.  More than 58 million single women are eligible to vote this year.  The is the first time in American history that voting-age single women outnumber married women in an election.

In nine of the battleground states, including Colorado, Florida and Virginia, the number of unmarried women eligible to vote this election exceeds married women.  That is significant because these singles have been among the most reliable Democrat Party supporters in past presidential elections.

In 2008, Mr. Obama carried unmarried women by a thirty-point margin, 66 to 34 percent.  The vote for the president in 2012 was even more out of balance.  Mr. Obama received 71 percent of the votes recorded by unmarried women, a 42 point margin over his Republican challenger.

Although it is never fair to generalize about an entire group, most single women have been at odds with Republican positions on abortion, contraception and female health issues.  The charges against Donald Trump involving alleged sexual misconduct won't help him with these women either.

If single women turn out in droves, it will be a good sign for Hillary Clinton, if past voting patterns hold.  Those are big IF's, considering Ms. Clinton's own trust issues with voters.  It is just another unknown in an election sprinkled with question marks.

For that reason, the only accurate prediction about this election is that it is unpredictable.

Election 2012: The Last Word

Ever since President Obama galloped to a second term, the nation's media and political pundits have been draping black crepe paper over the GOP brand.  These nattering nitwits have declared the Republican Party is officially dead or at the least no longer relevant.  

Their conclusions are based on shifting demographics and Hispanic turnout for Obama.  Their theories are rooted in research showing Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group in the nation. Furthermore, the Hispanic voting bloc represented a sizable advantage for the president.

No one would argue either conclusion.  However, most voters shared the  GOP's positions on major issues, according to some eyeopening, post-election data from Pew Research.  It wasn't the Republican label that fell out of favor.  Voters mainly liked Obama better than challenger Mitt Romney.

Perhaps that sounds too simplistic.  But the research confirms that most of the drivel about the "lessons to be learned" from the 2012 election is misleading.  Facts often have a habit of getting in the way of strongly held opinions.

Let's start with the GOP standard-bearer's political positions.  Nearly 50 percent of those who voted disapproved of Obama Care, according to Pew's exit polling.  More than half were opposed to an activist government.  Fully sixty percent thought the economy was sick. Voters even told pollsters the economy was their top issue.

Those numbers suggest Romney should have won in a cakewalk since most voters agreed with his positions on the election's defining issues.  

Conventional wisdom also has made much of the Hispanic vote, which Obama carried 71-to-27 percent. While the margin was significant, it fell short of Bill Clinton's performance in 1996 when he racked up 72 percent.  However, Hispanics represented only 10 percent of total voters in this year's election, nearly the same as recent presidential races.  Forty-eight percent of Hispanics did not vote.

Observers have underscored the  president's gains among minorities. Little has been said about Romney's strong showing compared with John McCain's performance in 2008.  Romney posted gains with men (+4 percentage points), whites (+4 points), younger voters (+6 points), Catholics (+6 points) and Jews (+9 points).  That means all those groups were less supportive of Obama.

Astonishingly, Romney also carried the independent vote by a 50-to-45 percent margin.  In 2008, independents were credited by many with the Obama victory.   The president captured 52 percent of the independent vote while McCain managed only 44 percent four years ago.

Obama also tallied 4.2 million fewer votes than he did in 2008.  On the other hand, Romney was able to pick up only 782,967 more votes than McCain, indicating Republican voters were not wildly enthusiastic about the former governor.  Total voter turnout was down by 3.4 million from 2008.

All those contradictions to conventional wisdom beg the question:  "Then how do you explain the Obama win?"

The election boiled down to likability.  Pew found that 53 percent of voters viewed Obama favorably versus 47 percent for Romney. Throughout the campaign, Romney's favorable ratings were at historic lows for a presidential candidate, Pew Research reported.

To underscore the conclusion, consider that voters gave Obama high marks for being "in touch" with ordinary people by a 53-to-43 percent margin over Romney.  That 10 percentage point gap was even more pronounced among women.

Based on that finding, it comes as no surprise that Obama won the women's vote by a decisive margin of 56-to-44 percent, according to exit interviews conducted by Gallup.  Romney had an eight-percentage point edge with men, winning 54-to-46 percent.  That means the gender gap was 20 percentage points, the largest ever in a presidential election claimed Gallup.

In his analysis of the data, Pew Research Center President Andrew Kohut commented: "...Most observers are overstating the gravity of the GOP's problem.  In particular, they are paying too little attention to how weak a candidate Mitt Romney was..."

The chief lesson from the election can best be summed up this way: voters say issues are important, but in many cases, they cast their ballot for the person they like best.  

That may be hard to swallow for political junkies.  Unfortunately it is a sign of the times.  People are either too busy or too lazy to study the issues and candidates in depth.  Their votes too often are swayed by candidates' personality, style and charisma.

In spite of the research, political elitists will continue to sound the death knell for the Republican Party.  But reports of the GOP's demise are greatly exaggerated.

The GOP is not a political dinosaur.  But the party must quit nominating presidential candidates who look and act like one.

The 1.8 Percent That Matters This Election

While President Obama obsesses over the wealthy one-percent, Republican challenger George Romney is courting the 1.8 percent of the nation's 131 million voters who tipped the electoral scales in the 2008 election.  These Americans reside in nine battleground states targeted by the GOP.

Obama claimed victory by a combined margin of 2,372,750 votes in these key states: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Colorado and Iowa. In all but three, the president had an edge of 4.5 percent or less of the total votes cast.

Without these wafer-thin wins, Barrack Obama would have spent the last four years in the U.S. Senate.  If the nine states had swung to John McCain, the Republican would have won the electoral vote 305 to 233 instead of losing 365 to 173.  This year, like 2008, the closely contested race is expected to turn on these same states.

Much has changed since Obama claimed the presidential prize, particularly in the nine pivotal states where the GOP has chalked up decisive gains in state and Congressional elections.  Here is a look at the state-by-state issues that could alter the political landscape this election.

Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Michigan account for 78 electoral votes, which represents 28 percent of the total needed to win the presidency.  To underscore how close the last election was, Obama won North Carolina's popular vote by 14,177 out of 4.2 million ballots.

The Big Four are fertile ground for the Republicans this time around. Voters in Florida, Ohio and recently North Carolina have approved bans on same sex marriage by overwhelming majorities.  The president thumbed his nose at these voters by "evolving" his position to pro-gay marriage.  

Republicans have more than social issues going for them. Unemployment rates in Michigan, Florida and North Carolina exceed the national average of 8.1 percent as the recession lingers.  Florida, Michigan and Ohio rank in the top ten worst states for home foreclosures.

In Virginia, the president's margin of victory over GOP nominee John McCain was 234,527 out of 3.7 million ballots.  Since the last presidential election, Virginia voters green-lighted a ban on same-sex marriage.  Voters in two other swing states, Colorado and Wisconsin, also came down on the same side of the issue.

Home foreclosures also have swamped Wisconsin.  It ranks tenth nationally among the hardest hit states. Republicans have flexed their political muscles in Wisconsin, picking a fight with public sector unions.  Contrary to pundit opinion, the brouhaha may end up harming Democrats worse than the GOP.

Not much has been made in the mainstream media about the issue of the Catholic Church's legal assault on behalf of religious freedom.  As the controversy festers, it could become a defining issue for voters in states like Wisconsin, where more than 40 percent of the population is Catholic.

Indiana was another squeaker for Obama.  He posted a razor-thin margin of 28,397 votes out of 2.75 million ballots.  Hooiser state voters had voted Republican in every presidential election since 1972 until Obama's upset in 2008.  Republicans now control the governor's mansion and other key offices.

In Iowa, the political winds are shifting after Democratic Party presidential candidates eked out wins in five of the last six general elections.  Obama's victory margin was less than 10 percent of all the ballots cast.  Republicans now hold most of the state's top elective offices, including the governorship.

Obama has deep divisions within his own party, too.  As evidence, an imprisoned felon received 41 percent of the vote in West Virginia's Democratic Party presidential primary.  Obama narrowly won the Arkansas primary after an unknown Tennessee lawyer garnered 42 percent of the vote.  In Kentucky, "uncommitted" finished second to Obama with 42 percent of the ballots.

That's why it is comical to watch the president harp on the one-percent in every speech.  His arrogance misleads him to believe Americans owe him another term in office.  The president is in for a rude awakening.