The USA Presidential Election

I’m watching the live feed from CBS News. I suppose that it is something like our own John Snow’s swingometer thingie. They have a big map of the USA in the background with colours and stuff. Early days, but, so far, Trump has 19 electoral votes to Clinton’s 3.

For a live feed, nothing much is happening except music. There is quite a lot of written stuff about predictions etc. In fact, there is almost nothing that is real. I suppose that that is to be expected. At the moment, the pundits are saying that white women are not going for Clinton. Exit polls, I suppose.

This is very comical. At the bottom of the screen, there is a state-by-state count. EG. Virginia, Trump 53%. Clinton 40 something, 11% of votes in. I suppose that I should watch for those states which have the highest count. Let’s see.

The pundits are saying that Trump must win Ohio. Ohio latest count: 10% in, Trump 54%, Clinton 43%. Interesting. Back to music. What fun. Loads and loads of adverts.

Kentucky: Trump 64%, Clinton 34%, 43% of votes in. Weird.

North Carolina: T 53, C 43, 2% of votes in.

More music and ads.

Ohio: 14% votes in. T 45, C 50. They reckon that Trump must win Ohio. Why? Because whoever Ohio votes for has always won in the past. Erm….. That was in the past.

Florida seems to be tied at the moment.

Of course, we have to remember the time zones. Most of the result are coming from Eastern states at the moment.

At the moment, Clinton has 68 electoral votes and Trump has 57.

More music.

Florida:  90% votes in. T 48, C 48, but T slightly ahead by some 80,000. More than 8 million votes counted apparently. Florida is supposed to be an important state because of the number of electoral votes. The pundits say that Trump MUST win Florida but it is not as important for Clinton. I don’ t really understand that.

A pundit has just said that Clinton is getting the votes of the ‘educated class’. Weird, or what?

Trump is pulling away from Clinton in Florida.

Latest electoral votes: T 123, C 97. 270 needed.

Florida: T still ahead by some 100,000 votes and almost all votes are in.

Cities seem to go for Clinton and rural areas for Trump. Why are cities so happy with the status quo?

Ohio: T ahead by about 80,000 votes.

Florida: T 150,000 ahead.

Another thing that amazes me is how low the population of some states is. EG. Tennessee has only some 2,000,000 voters. Most of the USA population is congregated in places like New York and California. The middle of the USA is empty.

A pundit has just said that Trump is winning in rural areas while Clinton is winning in cities. Why do cities want the political status quo to continue? Combine that with ‘the educated’ voting for Clinton, and a picture emerges vaguely.

T 137, C 104 electoral votes. A pundit is talking about exit polls. Can he not see the actual trend? Who cares, at this stage, about exit polls?

Haven’t had as much fun since Brexit. It seems that solid, middle America, the least populated states, are rolling back.

Ohio: Trump ahead by some 200,000 votes. Suddenly, the pundits have stopped talking about the ‘primacy’ of Ohio and Florida. Comical. And all the talk about the ‘primacy’ of Hispanic votes has also dried up.

The page keeps crashing, but, somehow, I keep getting it back on line.

Music again. The pundits must have weak bladders.

Interrupting the blather, it seems that the sooner a candidate gets an advantage, the more likely that the advantage will grow. If T gets 50 thou votes ahead, and then get 70 thou ahead, then the likelihood is that he will get further and further ahead.

North Carolina: T 47, C 36. Eh? I may be wrong.

The one thing missing in the CBS reporting is the number of electoral votes for each state. I know that it is based upon population, but it would be informative if it said something like: “15 electoral votes” or whatever. It is useless to say Clinton 75% of votes compared with Trump 25% if the particular state has only a tiny number of electoral votes – or vise versa.

Trump has almost certainly won Ohio – a state which Trump HAD TO win. I do not believe how the pundits have changed their minds. Ohio was supposed to be the ultimate indicator. Now it has been relegated to ‘erm…. perhaps….. maybe’. So was Florida, which Trump seems to be winning. That too has changed from ‘must win’ to ‘not that important’.

What I am hearing is typical media obfuscation – sitting on the fence. For a moment, whoever wins Florida and Utah WILL become President. But, suddenly, when Trump wins those states, they become less important, and Clinton can still win. Well, of course she can still win, but that is not the point. The point is that pundits are jellies.

More music and ads.

So we might see COP 7 in the same way. The Zealots are terrified of anyone —

[North Carolina, that important state, is now almost definitely Trump.]

pointing out that the Zealots no longer have popular support. We said, did we not?, that when the Zealots start to hit on fatties and drinkers, that they would find the going much more difficult. They have had it easy with tobacco control. Really easy. Really, really easy. The anti-tobacco ‘movement’ has been reaping vast fortunes for some people.

The ‘time zones’ are beginning to work themselves out. Attention is now moving to California. That should be especially amusing.

Enough.

As I see it, Trump is going to oust the current establishment. That is a huge endeavour. It is something that we in the UK should have done decades ago. The EU was obviously building a vast, and expensive, Empire years ago, and it is shameful that our Gov in the UK did not see that and put a stop to it. It is not possible to pick the EU apart a bit at a time because it has engineered many and multiple NGOs.

There is only one answer – De-fund them all. De-fund the UN, de-fund the WHO, de-fund the FCTC, de-fund them all. That is the only way that these octopuses can be busted. And, since they rely upon taxpayer monies, they will just wither away.

Clinton has lost the ‘primary’ states – Florida and Ohio.

Trump is going to win.

The pundits are now saying that it is a big night ….. Erm, the possible resurrection of Clinton, and that the important states are no longer important states. No wonder that CBS has to have many and frequent breaks – they have to get their story together.

===

I must break off now. It has been fun. I must to bed. Trump seems to have won ALL the states which he needed to win.

I expect to wake up tomorrow to the news that Trump has won.

 

 

 

6 Responses to “The USA Presidential Election”

  1. Roberto Says:

    Donald Trump won. Yes, perhaps the main reason why he won was his pledge to cleanse institutions. However, there is no evidence he has any plan to de-fund tobacco control or at least to appoint regulators that are not married to the prevailing anti-smoking (and anti-vaping) prohibitionist agenda. The only time I heard him talking about smoking was in an interview with a CNN anchor (Anderson Cooper) about 6 months ago. Trump was talking about his late brother Fred, recounting how he was a smoker and a drinker. Trump said that he did not smoke cigarettes nor drank and he thanked this to the big effort by Fred to keep him out of smoking and drinking. However, when Trump spoke he did not sound judgemental, he did not say “we should save America from evil tobacco” and he did not not used the demagogic resorting to “…the cheeldren”, or other sound bites that USA politicians do when the issue of smoking comes to the fore. So, there is some elements of hope, but to be honest, we simply don’t know what Trump will do in any issue.

    • junican Says:

      If there is any change from Trump, it will be in a general sense. EG, he will want to know what the FCTC does for the USA. He will look for financial savings. If there are none, and everything is a cost, then he will cut the funding.
      But such matters are small beer – unless someone finds a way to illustrate the devastating effect of smoking bans in all the possible ways.
      If Trump has the ‘nous’ that I think his business experience has taught him, he would root out the costs from unproductive sources.

  2. slugbop007 Says:

    Right. De-fund them all. Make them go door to door across the country and have doors slammed in their faces.

    slugbop007

    • junican Says:

      Questions have been asked in Parliament about funding ASH. The problem is that funding ASH, in itself, is small beer. What has not really been investigated is the deleterious effect of ASH’s demands on the economy – eg, pub closures. Those costs gigantically exceed the direct costs of ASH – from an economy point of view.
      But it is not just ASH which needs to be de-funded. Tobacco Control University depts must also have taxpayer funding withdrawn. They do not build, the demolish.

  3. smokingscot Says:

    Yo Junican. Want to laugh out loud?

    Go read:

    http://wmbriggs.com/post/20097/

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: