2. TIME CALLED KEY BATTLEGROUNDS TRUMP WON VOTES
10.30 Ohio 18
10.45 Nth Carolina 15
11.00 Florida 29
11.13 Wisconsin 10
2.41 Pennsylvania 20
TOTAL 92

3. “I like thinking big. I alwayshave. To me it’s very simple:
If you’re going to be thinking anyway, you mightaswell
think big.”—Donald J. Trump
In 1876 Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer left his two Gatlin guns behind that could have
changed the result at Little Bighorn as his 7th Calvary were primed with only Springfield "trap
door" single shot rifles as they took on Crazy Horse’s Indians who had lever action
Winchesters and Henry rifles.
Donald J. Trump made certain that he had his “Gatlin gun” when he took on Hillary Clinton
in the battle for the White House – analytics and superior analysis.
There is irrefutable evidence that suggests the 2016 U.S. Presidential election was won on
the “digital” battle grounds known as Social Media; incredibly Hillary Clinton had an
overwhelming financial and numbers edge but she did a “Custer” by failing to fully utilize
her advantage.
Trump did.
To make social media work for you in a political battlefield Hillary Clinton required three
things:
1. A big social media following. Tick.
2. Unlimited funds. Tick.
3. Digital expertise to engage, excite and influence her followers. Failure.
If we only include the Clinton followers from her Facebook and Twitter then add her
husband President Bill Clinton, her daughter Chelsea, and the Obama’s including the
President and his “rock star” former first Lady Michelle, they would have an impressive 190
million followers, albeit many duplicates.
The Trump family combined, including President Trump, First Lady Melania, and the children
Ivanka, Don Jnr. and Eric only total 39 million followers, a massive 150 million plus behind
team Hillary.
The contribution from President Obama was immense with 131 million followers.
Interestingly, Michelle Obama (22m) had more followers than Hillary (20m), surprising given

4. the Secretary had been a public figure for almost 30 years, well before the internet was
invented.
The Clinton team only needed to persuade a tiny fraction more, less than one percent of the
190 million voting electorate to either vote for her, or, just as important, not turnout for
Trump and she would have won the Presidency.
It really was that close, let me show you how close.
Hillary Clinton officially won 232 Electoral College votes and needed another 38 votes to be
America’s first female President.
She did not need to win North Carolina, Iowa or even Florida, all she needed was to win
Michigan (16 votes), Wisconsin (10) and Pennsylvania (20) and she lost those battleground
states by only a total of 107,000 votes.
She lost Michigan by only 11,612 votes, Pennsylvania by 68,326 votes and Wisconsin by
27,257 votes. Unbelievable!
To put it into perspective 107,000 votes from a population of 325 million people decided
the Presidency.
Hillary and her elitist friends at the top end of town, would have easily traded those 107,000
votes for $1 billion plus so the “swamp would not get drained”.
When you lose the right to be the most powerful person in the free world by just a fraction
then a reflection on a series of “what ifs” and “if only” takes place.
The Clinton camp only needed to generate an incremental 0.06% votes from their Social
Media machine of 190 million followers to win the election.
CLINTON TRUMP GAP EV Votes
Michigan 2,268,193 2,279,805 11,612 16
Pennsylvania 2,844,705 2,912,941 68,236 20
Wisconsin 1,382,210 1,409,467 27,257 10
107,105 46
It was five days prior to the election and the media, bookmakers and almost every data guru
had Donald Trump “dead and buried” when his very own “Gatlin gun”, a 6-foot-8-inch, 240-
pound former basketball player informed his boss that he was 95% sure that he would be
the next President of the United States.
Two days later on the Sunday, Brad Parscale, the Digital director for the Trump Campaign
was almost 100% certain that Trump would win 305 electoral votes – 35 more than required
to claim the White House.

5. The data analysed had convinced Parscale and his elite team of miners that the absentee
and early votes were indicating a win in several major swing states opening up several
incremental pathways to the obligatory 270 electoral votes.
This enabled Trump’s highly regarded son in law Jared Kushner and campaign CEO Steve
Bannon to re-direct their remaining funds to these crucial battle grounds ensuring that the
money was spent on the late undecided voters.
The funds were well directed and contributed to Trump narrowly winning several states, but
his around the clock stumping for the last two weeks “out-campaigned” Hillary. He attended
87 rallies in the last three months to Hillary’s 34.
Trump was critical of Mitt Romney in the 2012 election that he had “failed to energize the
republican base”.
Trump said:” Had he (Romney) energized the base, because the base didn’t go out and vote
— you understand that,” he said. “Which is shocking, because they’re not fans of Obama …
had they gone out and voted, the people that sat back and didn’t get up and vote, which is
hard to believe, he would have won the election?”
History will show that Trumps outburst was correct, and nobody could every accuse him of
not energising his base as he turned up on the stump sometimes five times a day attracting
record crowds and unlike his opponent, choosing to not use famous entertainers.
Curiously, President Obama has accused Hillary Clinton for the same mistake that Romney
made; he was critical that Clinton should have “reached out to white, non-urban voters” as
he did in both 2008 and 2012.
The President noted that Clinton's failure to "show up everywhere," not just in the big inner
cities she focused on during the final weeks of her campaign cost the election.
There is little doubt that a better use of digital analytics and effective speeches in the last
two weeks of the election was the difference that allowed Donald Trump to win so many
battleground states narrowly giving him a historic win.
With time running out, Steve Bannon brilliantly devised a tactic that General David Petraeus
would have been proud of based on “if you throw enough mud, some will stick”.
Bannon had no scientific history to prove his theory that his strategy would encourage
Hillary voters to stay at home. It could have easily back fired and had the opposite impact.
This was clear thinking at its best, if you cannot get them to vote for us then make damn
sure they don’t vote for the opposition. Not voting at all is considered a win for Trump.

6. President Trump with his “Gatlin gun”, data guru Brad Parscale
Funds were directed to placing spots on select African American radio stations. A South
Park-style animation was created of Clinton delivering the “super predator” line (using audio
from her original 1996 sound bite), as cartoon text popped up around her: “Hillary Thinks
African Americans are Super Predators.”
The animation was delivered to targeted African American voters through Facebook “dark
posts”—non-public posts. “Only the people we want to see it see it.” Says Parscale.
The aim was to depress the Clinton’s vote total. It was designed to dramatically affect Hillary
Clinton’s ability to turn people out to cast a vote.
The data targeted the key groups that Hillary needed to win, essentially young women,
African-Americans and the Bernie Sanders idealistic white liberals. These three groups were
part of individual campaigns within Facebook and each were cleverly saturated with a stark
fact designed to make the Hillary voters think twice, and to swing the undecided voters to
Trump.
Steve Bannon built a massive audience when he joined Breitbart and said: “I wouldn’t have
come aboard, even for Trump, if I hadn’t known they were building this massive Facebook
and data engine, we know its power.”
He was correct, it worked!

7. TARGET 1: Bernie Sanders supporters
* Quoting Hillary WikiLeak emails in support for the Trans Pacific
Partnership
REPORT CARD: Pass mark
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump had a similar trade policy
TARGET 2: Young women
* Bill Clinton and the sexual assault charges against women (pic)
REPORT CARD: Pass mark

8. WHITE WOMEN VOTE REPUPLICAN
2004 2008 2012 2016
BUSH 55% MCCAIN 53% ROMNEY 56% TRUMP 53%
KERRY 44% OBAMA 46% OBAMA 42% CLINTON 43%
All Women White Women
Trump 42% Trump 53%
Clinton 54% Clinton 43%
Given Trumps “Hollywood access” tape, to keep Hillary at 43% on white women and trail the
GOP candidate by 10 points was a success.
REPORT CARD: Pass mark
TARGET 3: African American men
* Hillarycalled African Americanmen "superpredators" in 1996
REPORT CARD: Pass mark
Trump was successful with Black American men, especially those with a College education
(16%) which almost doubled the national trend.
While Hillary won the Black vote easily, the turnout was down 8% which cost her heavily.
College Blacks help Trump Trump win
%
Hillary Wins Black Vote %
Black men w/college 16 Florida 84
Black men no collge 11 Michigan 92
Black Women w college 6 North Carolina 90
Black women no college 1 Ohio 89
Pennsylvania 92
Virgina 88
Wisconsin 92

9. “My Twitter has become so powerfulthatI can actually make my enemies tell
the truth. “Donald Trump
Most people have heard of the
word ANALYITCS, but few actually
understand the real power of what
it can bring and how influential
they are to the new world we live
in.
I had a fascinating cuppa with a
former CIA data Scientist who used
analytics to predict the outcomes
of Black Ops missions; he now uses
his expertise to predict outcomes
on American Football.
So when the President wants to
know what percentage chance of
success it is of that man being
Osama Bin Laden, getting in and
out with him successfully analytics
was used for the answer.
Bookmakers have replaced sport’s
experts with young students with
analytical skills, while most thinking
sporting clubs use analytics for
recruitment and retention.
Brad Parscale “Genius or lucky”?
Analytics has now become the most important tool in political elections. You cannot win
without it, but importantly, you cannot win with a poor design and have the right expertise
on hand to analyse it correctly.
It is important to comprehend that knowing analytics and actually having access to them is
one thing, but if the data is not populated into a platform with the correct benchmarks and
weighting it will be misleading and act as more of a hindrance.
Hillary Clinton certainly had everything that the Trump campaign had in terms of capturing
key data, in fact their lists were more robust and they had greater resources.
What they got wrong was their original platform design and competent analysts to read the
data behind the data.

10. Anyone can look at data, but not everyone can read it and have a conversation with it. It will
talk to you if you know how; it will give you the hidden answers that no one else knows.
The election was Hillary Clinton’s to lose, and while Trump did a masterful job in selling to
the American people the “Art of the deal”, he would not have won the keys to the White
House without severe incompetence levels from his opposition.
The intelligence that came to Hillary in the last few weeks from her “Generals” was poor, or,
she just refused to heed the advice.
Her analysts should have been advising her that Trump is closing in on several battle
grounds and she needs to get out in front of the people. To complement her “personal”
rally’s her huge social media team should have been utilizing their massive data base to
address the key issues in the key states.
Her focus was a “hate campaign” on Trump with little policy on what she would do for the
people. If she had an economy message, she did not sell it.
Strategically, her biggest mistake was to cut and paste the Obama policies, especially rubber
stamping Obama Care which announced crippling premium increases days from the
Election. President Bill Clinton did not help the already “vote killing” situation by labelling
Obama care 'a crazy system'.
The electorate was screaming for a change and Hillary simply represented “same old, same
again”. It was a suicide strategy that was a monumental stuff up by her advisers.
The “trade off” to ensure she had the support of a popular President Obama was to support
his policies and not “bad mouth” him.
Prez. Obama did his part with many powerful rallies’ screaming at Black America to not ruin
his legacy.
"My name may not be on the ballot, but our progress is on the ballot," President Obama
said. "And there is one candidate who will advance those things. And there is another
candidate who's defining principal, the central theme of his candidacy is opposition to all
that we have done."
"There's no such thing as a vote that doesn't matter," Obama said. "It all matters. And after
we have achieved historic turnout in 2008 and 2012, especially in the African-American
community, I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets
down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good send
off? Go vote!"
They didn’t!
Hillary also had her formidable husband, President Clinton, who was tireless on the stump
and ensured an elongated crowd. It can be said that in both President Obama and President

11. Clinton, Hillary had two of the most gifted orators in modern political history but if you are
preaching the wrong message it has an adverse impact.
The edge that the Trump campaign had over the Clinton campaign was simple, yet
profound:
 They were able to generate critical intel from their data by “experimenting” with
hundreds of Facebook adverts that advise which messages are resonating with the
people and in which area. Then they send in the troops in an area based on intel and
with a message that will turn “fence sitters” into a Trump vote.
 Data guru Brad Parscale was able to generate crucial intel from the analytics that
told him a story, and were able to not only analyse it correctly, but ensure the
remaining funds were invested where it would make a difference.
 The overall team must take the bouquets but when you narrowly win three
battleground states that give you victory the dissemination of the intel is what
makes the difference and the key players start with Kellyanne Conway who has a
resume of making smart decisions based on polls and her ability to work with
Trump’s son in law Jared Kushner who complemented Parscale with his leadership
and the incremental resources that he introduced was instrumental. Steve Bannon
was introduced as Campaign CEO in only the last three months but his brilliant
strategic mind ensured the icing on the cake and had a profound impact on
demonising concerned Hillary voters.
It is rare for so many “egos” to all work so well and finish with the desired result.

12. (as at Election Day 2016)
FACEBOOK TWITTER COMBINED
H. CLINTON 9,508,382 11,100,000 20,608,382
B. CLINTON 3,933,424 6,430,000 10,363,424
C.CLINTON 1,324,788 1,230,000 2,554,788
B. OBAMA 52,106,754 79,500,000 131,606,754
M. OBAMA 16,497,526 5,620,000 22,117,526
83,370,874 103,880,000 187,250,874
DJ TRUMP 14,848,449 15,300,000 30,148,449
M. TRUMP 1,163,211 511,000 1,674,211
I. TRUMP 1,814,411 2,360,000 4,174,411
D. TRUMP Jr 813,342 897,000 1,710,342
E. TRUMP 411,369 660,000 1,071,369
19,050,782 19,728,000 38,778,782
Barack Obama was number three on Twitter with 80 million followers, behind Hillary
surrogates Katy Perry and Justin Bieber, who hosted a fundraiser for Clinton.
Donald Trump has a bigger following than Hillary on social media, but overall the Hillary
team wins easily over Trump, at least with followers.
Michelle Obama has more Facebook followers than Hillary Clinton

13. When Donald Trump formerly announced his candidacy to run forthe Presidency of the
United States in April 2015 I could not wait to find a bookmaker and checkout his odds.
No one had ever made it all the way to the Oval office without a political resume in all
previous 44 elections dating back to 1798, but then again, and this is what the pundits
discounted, no one had ever seen anyone like Donald J. Trump before.
I reasoned that you don’t become a self-made billionaire and have properties and business
interests in over 20 countries if you are incompetent, and if we learnt anything from “The
Apprentice”, it was that Donald Trump would be a master at selling his brand to the
American voters. Americans LOVE being sold to; Barrack Obama was brilliant with his silver
tongue, while America fell in love with the debonair JFK and Ronald Reagan, before the
irrepressible Bill Clinton who twice made a deal with the electorate that they could not
refuse.
I could not wait to find a bookmaker and check out his odds
It was no surprise to see Hillary Clinton head the initial markets, after all, she was given
every possible “rails run” that any candidate could wish for:
 She was a former First Lady
 A former Secretary of State
 Had full support of incumbent President Obama and his popular wife.
 She would be the first ever lady President.
 She had unlimited funds and resources

14. To add to this, the DNC assembled an “unelectable” group of candidates to oppose her as
the Democratic nomination. Her toughest opponent was the 74 year old Bernie Sanders
who had no chance with his Socialist policies and they knew it.
It was a done deal; the DNC had all their Liberal eggs in the Hillary tank.
The only risk with Hillary not firming in the markets was if somehow “WikiLeaks” would
publish something so damaging that she was forced to withdraw. (They actually did, but she
stayed in anyway as they thought they had an unassailable lead and were unbeatable.)
Even though Hillary was a “flawed” candidate, she simply had no opposition to be the DNC
nominee and all the data indicated that it would be Hillary to take on Donald Trump, Marco
Rubio or Ted Cruz.
All three GOP candidates were excellent orators and had several advantages over Hillary.
They were all considered to be a formidable opponent and given Rubio or Cruz likely would
not have had the major setbacks that Trump did, there is an argument that they may have
won the general election easier.
The easy part of the investment plan was to support Hillary at even money (2.00) and LAY
her to be beaten when she firmed into 1.50. This strategy created “free money” allowing for
options on both sides. Having already supported Trump early at the big odds of 21.00 and
15.00 the book was a win/win providing Trump became the GOP nominee.
Technically, prior to Indiana, I should have at least
“saved my stake” on a possible Cruz (pic) Presidential
win, but my data just was not indicating he had a path
to beat Trump via the voters, and even if he had forced
an unusual super delegate win at the convention with
possible rule changes the damage caused to Trump
loyalists would have deserted the party.
Early on in the Primaries when most markets went up and liquidity was substantial enough
in the U.K. Exchanges, Trump was considered a joke and only rated at 20/1 or 21.00 (4.8%)
chance of success.
The market was confused, they did not know what to do with this “unknown” political
beast, but was he really unknown?
By the time the Primaries were in full swing Trump had already surprised many and his price
had been cut in half while Hillary continued to firm in to long odds on favourite, not only as
the RNC nominee but to be the next President.

15. Hillary was always a damaged goods with a heap of baggage but she had no opposition and
was always going to be the candidate to beat, and was entitled to be her short quote, while
the market was still coming to grips with the 17 players on the GOP side.
The market was in love with Jeb Bush early on which was ideal as it offered value to others.
Trump got poor Jeb correct when he cruelly labelled him “low energy”.
Despite the big GOP field of candidates, Marco Rubio was the only other runner that
impressed as being “Presidential”, but his biggest problem was he could not compete one
on one with the Donald and “little” Marco drifted away. It was sad to see, but it was ruthless
in the debates and the “dog eats dog” environment suited the billionaire from Queens, New
York.
I thought that if Donald could dispatch such a quality candidate like Rubio so easily and
literally eat him for breakfast then Hillary would be a breeze. It was at this point that I
started to get excited and looked at other investment opportunities.
Marco Rubio impressed as being “Presidential”
Ted Cruz is a brilliant orator, but he could not communicate like Trump could and John
Kasich was just boring talking slowly about his family tree. That said, like Rubio and Cruz, I
firmly believe that Kasich also could have defeated Hillary given the chance.
Don’t forget that everything possible to go wrong went wrong for Trump and he still won by
the length of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Trump became the presumptive nominee in early April after his last two rivals, Ted Cruz and
John Kasich dropped out shortly after the Indiana Primaries. He became the official nominee
on July 19, 2016.
With all of Hillary’s negatives, and there were plenty, she still had the numbers to win with
only a week to go till Election Day, then slowly the tide started to turn and all my figures

16. showed a real dog fight looming, and when that happens, you always want to back the big
dog.
I sent an email four days prior to the election to close friend Matt Tripp, the founder and
CEO of betting giant Crownbet who is hoping that a Trump win would open up legal sports
betting in North America.
I said in part: “Matt, I think Trump can get to 270 this way:
Toss Ups Result
Florida (29) Correct
Ohio (18) Correct
North Carolina (15) Correct
Georgia (16) Correct
Nevada (6) Wrong
Arizona (11) Correct
New Mexico (5) Correct
Iowa (6) Correct
I withdrew Nevada the next day from my forecast as the exit data on Hispanics was a much
higher turnout than I budgeted for and it turned out that way (Clinton 47.9; Trump 45.5).
There is no doubt that I could have easily added some of the other toss up states that Trump
won like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Main CD2 as the demographics were similar in many
instances and they were within the margin of error, but when forecasting in a two horse
race you cannot tip both runners, although the logic was if Trump could win one, he could
run the table, which is why the gap in the market was too great and Trump represented
huge value. The odds were simply wrong!
The data was saying very clearly that Trump would either just lose or just win and if he wins
it would be possible to go past 300 as he would have won several battle grounds with
similar demographics.
There was nothing in the data to say Trump would lose easily; he was competitive in each
swing state, and thanks to the FBI Director and the Obama Care premium increases, he had
added momentum, something I weigh heavily.
I discuss the James Comey letter later, but Trump’s momentum had already begun and my
analysis is it did not influence the end result. Hillary is clutching at straws blaming Comey
instead of looking into her mirror.
Election Day was unforgettable and everything was on track when Ohio and North Carolina
came in; they were crucial states to win but they were expected. What was not expected
was that Trump would win the crucial Ohio by the wide margin of 8 points.

17. The significant Ohio winning margin was the very first tangible indication that a major upset
was on. This result dispelled the veracity of the “false” exit polls that Trump received from
his daughter Ivanka that morning indicating an easy Clinton victory. He was back on track to
believe in what his Data Director Brad Parscale had told him.
Florida was by far the most contentious time as the leader board kept changing and the
uncertainty for Trump was that several heavily populated Blue counties were only 85%
counted like Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach and when they finally hit 100% counted,
the 29 Electoral Votes could have easily flipped.
This would have been the most nervous period for Trump as a Florida win would make him
the market favourite to be the next President of the United States, displacing Hillary for the
first time since betting started 16 months earlier.
It was not until 11.00pm that Florida was called in the red team and this became the first
“mini upset” which opened many other pathways. This would have been when Hillary
probably skulled her first drink and Trump, a teetotaller, thought about having a quiet one.
Despite losing Ohio and Florida, Hillary still had several viable paths to a win, but in my
opinion, Wisconsin falling to Trump 13 minutes later was a huge upset (see chart below) and
signalled the “death knell”.
Nobody forecast that Hillary would lose Wisconsin (chart below), not even Brad Parscale.
This result underlined in big bold letters that Middle America had vented their spleen by
coming out to vote for Trump.
It was time for Hillary to skull another drink.
Wisconsin Final Results Trump +0.8
RCP Average Final Forecast Clinton+6.5
Remington Research (R)* 11/1 - 11/2 Clinton +8
Loras 10/31 - 11/1 Clinton +6
Remington Research (R)* 10/30 - 10/30 Clinton +4
Marquette 10/26 - 10/31 Clinton +6
Emerson 10/26 - 10/27 Clinton +6
Remington Research (R)* 10/20 - 10/22 Clinton +5
Monmouth 10/15 - 10/18 Clinton +7
WPR/St. Norbert 10/13 - 10/16 Clinton +8
Marquette 10/6 - 10/9 Clinton +7
CBS News/YouGov 10/5 - 10/7 Clinton +4
Loras 10/4 - 10/5 Clinton +8
Gravis 10/4 - 10/4 Clinton +8
“Nobody forecast that Hillary would lose Wisconsin”.

18. When Trump claimed Pennsylvania at 2.41am, it was the final nail in the DNC coffin and
Hillary would she would never sleep in the West Wing again.
My forecast to Matt Tripp was Trump 270 and Clinton 268. But once Middle America voted
RED it became a snowball effect with Trump ending up on 306 to Clinton on 232.
It was a stunning victory for Donald Trump but he was only able to create history because of
the many variables that fell for him and the undeniable fact that he had a flawed candidate
as his opposition who hired a support team that got her strategy wide of the mark.
The election was Hillary’s to lose and she has no one to blame but herself.
It is crucial when assessing data not to invite outside influences to “play with your mind”. I
enjoy listening to and reading the media, but never allow their viewpoints change the facts,
and anyone who examined the FACTS ONLY could have easily come up with a Trump win.
Below is how the market perceived the race on Election Day Nov. 08, 2016:
Back Probability %
Hillary Clinton 1.34 75%
Donald Trump 3.95 25%
100%
One thing is absolute; the gap in the market (Chart above) in the lead up to Election Day
placed no weight on all the red flag warnings about Hillary Clinton, and this was exacerbated
by amazing biased reporting by the media who clearly influenced normal clear and logical
thinking.
By Election morning, Nov. 08, 2016 the media were so pronounced in favour of Hillary that
by the afternoon she actually firmed into as short as 1.15. That is an implied probability of
an 86.9% chance of her winning.
The market, and the “experts”, was so highly influenced by all the positive reports about
Hillary that Donald Trump was only given a 13% chance of a major upset at this point.
Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, someone I admire immensely, “sat on the fence” with his prediction
saying: “No sense in guessing who will win, according to the polls the election is razor close.”
“Razor close” was not reflected in the betting markets around the world where millions of
dollars was invested. O’Reilly was one of the few to concede Trump “a good winning
chance” based on his logic, close polls and the fact that Trump could do well in the
absentees and early votes, noting that he had momentum and he could win a big chunk of
the undecided voters. This turned out to be correct.

19. It is true that O’Reilly and Trump are long time baseball buddies, but if he had thought that
Hillary would win the election based on his information Intel then he would have no
compunction to say so to his massive audience.
To say it was too close to call was accurate as the variables were immense and no one knew
exactly if Hillary could get the minorities to turn out for her and if Trump could convert the
majority of the independents and undecided voters.
In market betting terms “too close to call” or “razor close” means 2.00, or even money, each
of two, with both Hillary and the Donald each having a 50% chance of success.
An investor or gambler can only win consistently long term if he can secure “value”.
That means that you invest when you perceive that the market has got it wrong. The gap in
the market on Election Day with a very fluid hold of over $200m was a huge 74 points. Even
if you thought that Hillary would win by 10 or 20 points you would still have to speculate on
Trump at this perceived value and if you thought that it was “razor close” then investing in
Trump at $8 was a gift from god. It would be like opposing the New England Patriots when
you knew Tom Brady would not play before the market knew.
Professionals who win long term do not back who they think will win, but who represents
value. They know that regardless of the results, that over time, mathematics will fall in their
favour.
The skill is your ability to determine real “value”.
Many pundits have the mindset that if a coin lands on tail tens time in a row then they
should back heads next based
on the “law of averages”. The
FACT is that once the coin is in
the air the exact mathematical
chance of it landing on tails is
50%.
For the record, Trumps own
data analysts were 95% certain
of a win on the Friday before
the Tuesday Election, and
100% certain on the Sunday
based on their internal data
from early votes and
absentees and those who had
not yet made up their mind.
They had also factored in that

20. they could change “Hillary voters” to not vote at all, which in fact converts to a vote for
Trump. The negative “Gatlin Gun” tactics, the brainchild of Steve Bannon were starting to
hit pay dirt.
The key reasoning behind Trump getting to the 270 winning post was that he was within the
margin of error in most battle ground states and I weighted very heavily that he would win
over 60% of the undecided 12% of voters.
The popular vote was not part of the rules so national polling was totally disregarded.
It is easy to claimhindsight wisdom, but the undeniable facts in the data where readily
available to the public (and media) if they bothered, or had the will to look and be objective.
I discuss in some detail below some of the fundamental errors made by some professionals
who make a good living normally not making mistakes.
History will show that they backed the wrong winner, but the reality is they only missed out
by 107k votes.
Donald Trump said that when he was told that he looked like losing on the morning of the
election he felt “ok”.
He knew that whatever happened he had given the campaign everything and that was
evident on the last day when after completing an energy sapping six rallies, he decided at
9.30pm to fly to Michigan and do one more. This was unscheduled and no one knew but
after a few tweets over 30,000 people turned up and it was not until 12.45am the next
morning on Election Day that Trump actually went on stage and spoke.
You think of things like that when only 117,000 votes decide the most powerful person in
the free world.
TRUMP MIDNIGHT RALLY IN MICHIGAN – 2 MILE LONG WAIT. As Trump said: “No Bon
Jovi, no Lady Gaga,” just him.

21. “I will build a greatwall – and nobody buildswallsbetter than me, believe me –
and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, greatwallon our
southern border, and I willmake Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”
Donald Trump
The Trump campaign Digital DirectorBrad Parscale named his work on the 2016 Election
“Project Alamo”, off course he did.
Parscale lives in San Antonio where the Battle of the Alamo took place in 1836 so the name
was a natural choice, but was it inspired by Donald Trump’s very first campaign promise; to
build a wall against the Mexicans?
The Battle of the Alamo was a Mexican victory when their army scaled the walls in the early
hours of March 6, 1836 against the Texan Army. General Santa Anna’s attack force, a total
of some 1,500 soldiers overwhelmed the sleeping and unsuspecting Texan garrison fortified
inside the Alamo. Santa Anna’s battle plan called for four assault columns to simultaneously
storm the walls of the mission fortress from all directions.
180 years later and Mexicans are still trying to cross the wall into Texas

22. “Sometimesyour best investments are the onesyou don'tmake.” Donald
Trump
There was months of soul searching and personal doubts with many analysts and
professionals who many I admire and personally study closely because of their immense
talent and consistent ability to “get it right”.
The vast majority of the “experts” got it horribly - yes horribly - wrong in their predictive
analysis of a Trump Presidential win.
My advice to them is to know that anyone can stuff up, and they need to suck it up and
move on. Their cleverness has not deserted them; they just had a bad hair day, or maybe
with some, 500 bad hair days.
In this game there is no prize for running second, so it is pointless making excuses. It was a
two horse race and the result is black and white - Hillary or the Donald.
Actually, the result was white or orange with Trump being the first ever “orange” President
to replace a black President, so it really is “Orange is the new Black”.
The vast majority of pundits, journalist and professionals were running for cover trying to
find a way to preserve their fallen reputations.
As expected, so many claimed “partial” victory saying they gave Trump a good chance.
Yeah right, pull the other one!
The guys that actually put their reputations on the line and gave an opinion, even if
incorrect, gained kudos as they actually “had a go”, which ultimately is why most audiences
turn in. They want another opinion from a reputed “expert”.
Many, like Bill O’Reilly (pic), sat on the fence: “The polls
are too close….it’s impossible blah blah blah.”
We know that the polls are close Bill, but you are número
uno and your millions of viewers wanted you to dig
deeper, talk to your skilled analysts who successfully
predicated the House and Senate voting on the day and
give us your tip.
Bill, you are on record as not being wrong, but in raw betting terms you were also 50% not
right either.

23. As you would say Bill:”…and that’s a memo”.
Regular Fox News “experts”, especially on O’Reilly’s Factor like Charles Krauthammer and
Carl Rove got Trump wrong from day one and it has been thought-provoking to watch them
change in their demeanour after the election.
When Dick Morris got Obama similarly wrong, he got the sack from the Factor, but given he
has since co-authored (with his wife) the book “Armageddon – How Trump can beat
Hillary”, Bill O’Reilly invited him back after he was proven correct.
Geraldo Rivera, kept telling everyone how much “I love Donald”, but in the next breath
would be highly critical of him, especially on Hispanics. Rivera was in an ideal position to
correct the misleading “Mexican quote” and did nothing. He opposes the wall and thinks
that it is ok to come into America illegally and stay.
Megyn Kelly (Pic. In the Debate) seized her opportunity to
enhance her brand when she asked Trump at the Presidential
debate: “…….. calling some women "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and
disgusting animals." This acted as the base for Kelly to
continue demonizing Trump and she was accused by
colleague Sean Hannity as supporting Clinton.
SeanHannity TWITTER ✔ @seanhannity
@megynkelly u should be mad at @HillaryClinton Clearly you support her. And
@realDonaldTrump did talk to u.
The Kelly File placed little TV time on Trump’s economic message or how he intended to fix
Obama Care and bring jobs back with manufacturing. She focused on sexismand racismat
every opportunity.
As one swinging voter put it: “I don’t have to have a beer with my President or even like
him, as long as he understands business and can offer us change from the last eight years.”
Megyn Kelly, who calls herself an Independent, never got that, but she can still thank Trump
for her ratings.
Nat Silver came out with a story headlined: “ Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A better
Chance Than Almost Anyone Else.”
Let’s be clear; this was a two horse race and it is poor form to claim you did something
correct when you were wrong, and big time wrong.
Even the Republicans who did not support Trump all of a sudden did an about face and
smiled at him and became a follower; after all he probably saved their jobs.

24. Nat Silver wrote on his website post-election: “The
polls showed a race that was both fairly close and
highly uncertain.”
Nat gave Trump a 28.6% winning chance which does
NOT reflect “close and highly uncertain”, and 538’s
forecast was Hillary to win 302 Electoral Votes to Trump’s 235 votes – a gap of 67. This
forecast was virtually reversed in reality.
47% to 53% is close, but not a 67 point gap.
Like every other pollster who got it wrong, Silver is “half-carting” after the event reminding
his new owners at ESPN and his followers that his forecast gave Trump much better odds
than other polling-based models.
In other words, he did not get it as wrong as his competition, but wrong anyway and still no
cigar.
To put it in racing terms, the race is over 270 yards and Trump won by 67 yards, equal to
25% or the length of the straight.
This was a monumental stuff up by the whiz kid and to quote punter “Mick” from Sydney,
Australia who invested on 538’s advice:” Nat would gain more followers if he admitted he
ballsed it totally up, we are all human.”
Toss Ups Result Silver
Florida (29) Trump Wrong
Ohio (18) Trump Correct
Michigan (16) Trump Wrong
Pennsylvania (20) Trump Wrong
New Hampshire (4) Clinton Correct
Maine CD2 (1) Trump Wrong
Maine (2) Clinton Correct
North Carolina (15) Trump Wrong
Georgia (16) Trump Correct
Colorado (9) Clinton Correct
Nevada (6) Clinton Correct
Arizona (11) Trump Correct
New Mexico (5) Clinton Correct
Iowa (6) Trump Correct
Nat says that perhaps the most important reason why pollsters got it wrong was they did
not “measure uncertainty and to account for risk.”

25. That’s true, so why did his 538 website not do precisely that?
The biggest “uncertainty” was the 12% of undecided voters, and how they voted was
ALWAYS going to influence the election in the crucial battle ground states.
Look at the chart below and you can see why Nat Silver and his 538 team were in shock
after Trump was elected. They got a staggering five of the 13 (38.5%) toss up states
incorrect, including the biggies Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.
Four years ago they were 50/50 (100%), and before that 48/50 (96%), so what in the hell
went wrong this time?
Nat Silver talks about “measuring uncertainty and accounting for risk” and we have already
identified the 12% of undecided voters as the “uncertainty”, but what about “measuring the
risk”?
The risk was Donald J. Trump the man, and measuring his impact on voters and his ability to
get them to turn out.
The biggest problem that Pollsters like Nat Silver was that they had never encountered
anyone like Trump before. They could not go back into their data base and pull out analytics
on previous contenders like DJT – he is unique, which makes weighting almost impossible,
but not improbable.
The golden rule in analysing is to be objective and never be influenced by outside forces or
compassion.
If you are American and they are playing England in the World Cup then you should step
aside as you will be influenced as a passionate countryman. It is a human instinct.
I consciously never get too close to any players analysing Rugby League as if you really like
them as a person it can play with your sub-conscious. It is best to be neutral.
As entertaining as Sean Hannity (Hannity on Fox News) is, he is “Mr Conservative” and will
always plump for the Republican. He is too close to the GOP emotionally so his opinions,
although newsworthy, are not weighted; similarly CNN’s positive views on Democrats are
discounted.
I read every article from Nat Silver on Election 2016 and listened to every podcast. I find his
insight fascinating, but he could not fathom what made Donald Trump tick, and why he
could win in the battle grounds.
It was clear very early into the cycle that Silver and his loyal colleagues had already made up
their minds about Trump. A word here and a word there in the group Podcasts painted a
clear picture for me as I listened late at night. The body language was all one sided.

26. I concluded, based on the 538 podcast comments, that they believed the media hype that
Trump is a 'racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic' etc.
I have never heard anything from Trump’s mouth to suggest he is a racist or hates gays, and
to support that view I place great weight on the opinion of Bill O’Reilly fromFox News. You
do not become the number one news commentator for 17 consecutive years on cable TV if
you do not earn a reputation for smart views and honesty.
Bill O’Reilly said on his Fox News show “The Factor”: Now, I like Jorge Ramos, he's no phony,
but he's absolutely blind on the Trump issue. And he has no bleeping clue about what we do
here, obviously. Maybe Jorge objects, because I will not brand Donald Trump a racist. He is
not. He doesn't care what color or race somebody is. It is not racist to want to shut down
illegal immigration or brand Islamic terrorism a deep threat. That's not racist. It is not a
mark of fascism to hold other countries accountable for treating America unfairly. In
addition, I'm not in the nit-picking business. Trump and every other politician misspeak
at times. The gotcha game is cheap and boring. For example, if you really believe Donald
Trump is courting the KKK, you need to get some fresh air.”
Judge Jeanine Pirro, who has known Trump and his family for 31 years, also said he was not
a racist.
The media also labelled Trump anti-Jewish, perhaps the most ridiculous of them all.
Let’s examine a few facts inclusive of his Jewish relationships.
Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Modern Orthodox Judaism before marrying Jared
Kushner, the 35-year-old real-estate magnate and publisher of the New York Observer. The
Jewish Kushner is one of Trump’s most respected voices and part of his executive.
Jason Greenblatt was the Trump Organization’s general counsel and one of the company’s
top in-house legal officers. Greenblatt, who has worked for Trump since the mid-1990s, is
one of the President Trumps top advisers on Israel and Jewish affairs and was the
campaign’s primary liaison to the Jewish community. David Friedman, a bankruptcy attorney
who first began working for Trump roughly 15 years ago and who represented Trump during
bankruptcy proceedings related to Trump-branded business ventures in Atlantic City, is the
President’s other top-ranking Israel adviser, along with Greenblatt. Michael Cohen is
Trump’s special counsel and executive vice president and personal lawyer. Steven Mnuchin,
now Treasury Secretary, previously ran his own hedge fund: “I was there at the beginning
when he decided to run for president, and I’ve been a supporter and quiet adviser behind the
scenes to him,” Mnuchin said.
Also, Trump had the support of perhaps the single most important political donor in the
American Jewish world—Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who is worth some $26.5
billion.

27. Nat Silver describes himself as “half Jewish” and will have his own views. He is also openly
gay, but Hillary Clinton accepted tens of millions from Middle East countries that execute
gays just for being gay, but the media have branded Trump as a gay basher and some
people are easily convinced, especially when they want to be.
Nat Silver founded fivethrityeight.com and sold it to ESPN who supported Hillary Clinton.
Even if he was not given any editorial guidelines by his owners, sub-consciously he would be
uncomfortable going against his bosses.
Jewish Voters
Trump 29%
Clinton 71%
“I have so many fabulousfriendswho happen to be gay, butI am a
traditionalist. “DonaldTrump
We now all know now that fivethirtyeight’s Nat Silver is NOT god.
He went into the election with a “god like” reputation carrying a “god like” resume with a
somewhat freakish record of brilliant analysis in U.S. Prez elections.
fivethirtyeight’s Nat Silver
To analyse one of the great analysers when they stuff up can drive you crazy, and the
reasoning can be a fruitless exercise, but let’s try anyway!
Nat’s overall track record is close to flawless, he successfully called the outcomes in 49 of
the 50 states in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, and in the following election he correctly
predicted the winner of all 50 states, 50/50. That is unheard of and if it was not documented
I would not believe it.

28. This analysis has been harsh on Nat but that is only because he is THE tall poppy and has a
reputation of getting it right. The mainstream media “experts” have been largely ignored as
their broad narratives were bordering on lunacy and certainly no semblance of any balance
or justification from their daily biased rhetoric. As an ex journo, I was embarrassed for the
industry.
I have no doubt that Nat has done what I have and gone back and re-examined his data and
his thinking to find the missing cog, the cog that has turned Nat Silver into a mere mortal.
Nat Silver States Correct Wrong Predicts
%
2008 50 48 2 96
2012 50 50 0 100
2016 50 43 7 86
Nat incorrectly predicted that Hillary Clinton would win Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
North Carolina, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Main 2nd District. He published no less than
seven mistakes, a drop off of 14% from the previous four years.
Most pundits had a similar record as Nat, but he is “god” and he does not get it so horribly
wrong.
Let’s examine why he did!
These views are mine and I cannot substantiate most of them with data just observations
from someone who has studied Nat and his 538 crew. It is my very own “Michael Moore”
assessment if you like.
1. Strategically, Nat Silver and his fivethirtyeight crew made the same mistake as most
pollsters; he kept sprouting on about “National Polls”, when they are not part of the
rules to claimthe White House. Hillary already had California (55) and New York (29)
in the bag or 31% of her target, so the focus should have been on the “battleground”
states and ONLY the “battleground” states. Pollsters within team Trump got this
right and focused on this patch which won them the election.
2. I think Nat is a very biased lefty and loves Barrack Obama, and his emotional
attachment to the DNP and a new and exciting candidate subconsciously propelled
him to heavily weight Obama which helped him in the 2008 and 2012 cycles. This
stunning rise to fame is based on only two elections and may have given a false
indication of the real power and genius of the “Silver” code. Nat would be the first to
agree that the first lesson in kindergarten analyst school is to have a big sample and
two successful cycles can be argued as “lucky”.
3. Nat clearly made up his mind prior to the primaries that he did not like Donald
Trump. I have outlined some of his many negative comments here but again, he has
allowed his emotions to influence his data. When you add that he is a Democratic
fan, it was easy for him to be “kind” to the candidate that he wanted to win. This was
exacerbated when he disliked the opposition.

29. 4. Nat calls himself “half Jewish” and is openly gay, and I believe that he allowed
himself to be influenced by the mainstream media when they labelled Trump anti -
gay and ant-Jewish. I could find no evidence of these false accusations and actually
discovered the exact opposite from people I respect.
5. Nat had a biased left support team that were incapable of objective thinking. When
you hang around people almost 24/7 their influences rub off. Nat’s trusty colleague
Harry Enten wrote in 538 that Trump had a better chance of “playing in the NBA
Finals” than winning the Republican nomination. This rhetoric was typical and they
also thought of their boss as a “god” and nobody ever questions his wisdom, or lack
of it.
6. Nat is a mathematician; a whiz with figures, so how on earth was it possible for him
to say that Trump only had a 2% chance on Aug. 06, 2015 – 15 months before the
election when he was leading in the Primary GOP polls? He said: “mathematically,
Trump is just Sideshow Don, mathematically, so I’m not going to worry too much.
Mathematically.”
Nat Silver's Trump Ratings
DATE WIN CHANCE
Aug., 2015 2%
Sept., 2015 5%
Nov., 2015 6%
Dec., 2015 7%
Nov.7, 2016 28.5%
“If Trump makes it past the Republican National Convention (July 18-21) we’ll have to
consider his campaign successful, up to a point. He’ll have gotten further than any similar
candidate has in the past. But he’d still be a long way from winning the nomination, and the
a lot of precedent to worry about violating, since it’s been 40 years since Republicans came
close to a brokered convention.
“If Trump made it this far, the Republican Party would go to extraordinary lengths to avoid
nominating him. In “The Party Decides” view, parties are basically looking for two things
from their nominees: They want them to be reliable (meaning, they can be counted on to
enact the Republican agenda once in office), and they want them to be electable (meaning,
they can win in November). It’s hard to think of a candidate who does worse on those two
measures than Trump. He’s exceptionally unpopular among independent voters. But he also
has a checkered political past that includes once having supported abortion rights and
universal health care. For the Republican Party, he’s the worst of all possible worlds.
“So, how do I wind up with that 2 percent estimate of Trump’s nomination chances? It’s
what you get if you assume he has a 50 percent chance of surviving each subsequent stage
of the gantlet. Tonight’s debate could prove to be the beginning of the end for Trump, or he

30. could remain a factor for months to come. But he’s almost certainly doomed, sooner or
later.”
“The Republican Party’s delegate selection rules are straightforward in some states but
byzantine in others, especially in caucus states where delegates are sometimes not formally
pledged to the candidate who apparently earned their support on election night.
Furthermore, about 7 percent of delegates to the RNC are party leaders — what Democrats
would call “superdelegates” — who are usually not bound by the results of the popular vote
in their states at all.
“This introduces a little bit of slack into the system. It works in favor of establishment-backed
candidates, or those who have an intricate understanding of the delegate rules. And it works
against candidates like Trump.
“Regular FiveThirtyEight readers will be familiar with “The Party Decides” paradigm of the
nomination process. It posits that the nominee represents the consensus choice of influential
members of the party, and that rank-and-file voters serve mostly to vet and validate the
candidates in the event of a close call.
“Much of the party’s influence consists of what you might call “soft power,” the ability to
influence outcomes by persuasion rather than coercion. But the party also has some “hard
power”: It literally makes the rules. It can rule against candidates it doesn’t like in the event
of delegate-counting disputes. It can probably even change the rules midstream.
Thanks Nat, I am still confused with your strategies but that’s ok, I am sure you will get
another chance in Election 2020.
Fox News was not that kind to Dick Morris when he declared Romney would win in a
“landslide”.
CNN’s Jake Tapper twitted post-election result:” "It's going to the put polling industry out
of biz; it's going to put voter projection industry out of biz".

31. “In the end, you're measured notby how much you undertake but by whatyou
finally accomplish.” Donald Trump
Most pundits agreed that voter turnout was crucial in the election, but these same
“experts” placed no weight on the turnouts at the primary rallies or the key lead up rallies
between Trump and Clinton three months out from Election Day.
DNP
Primaries
Elections
Won
Votes
Won
Blacks Whites Indep Ages
17-29
CLINTON 34 16,914,722 75.90% 48.90% 34.30% 27.80%
SANDERS 23 13,206,428 23.10% 49.10% 63.30% 71.60%
RED FLAG: Hillary had her own party behind her and unlimited funds, yet she still lost 23
contests to the 74 yo Socialist Bernie Sanders, hardly a strong endorsement by the lefties.
Sanders dominated with the crucial independents and young voters.
DNP
Primaries
Minnesota Michigan Wisconsin
CLINTON 38.4 48.3 43.1
SANDERS 61.6 49.8 56.5
RED FLAG: Hillary could not win key swing states Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin in
the Primaries and this proved a reliable guide as she also lost these states to Trump. The
Clinton camp considered Wisconsin “in the bag” but her hollow defeat by Sanders should
have raised major concerns.
Late Rallies 2016 Trump Clinton GAP
Aug Rallies 32 11 - 21
Attendance 198,280 9,820 - 188,460
Sept Rallies 27 11 - 16
Attendance 144,675 4,150 - 140,525
Oct Rallies 28 12 - 16
Attendance 218,800 17,600 - 201,200
TOTAL Rallies 87 34 - 53
TOTAL Attendance 561,755 31,570 - 530,185

32. RED FLAG: The energy of supporters at rallies is a direct link to possible turnout in the
general election especially in the last few months of the cycle. Trump attended 53 more
rallies than Hillary in this period and attracted 561k supporters to Hillary’s 31k, a gap of over
half a million.
This was the same pattern between Hillary and Bernie Sanders in the primaries
underpinning her low popularity and supporter enthusiasm numbers were down.
Not good news for Hillary Clinton
Too much money" flooding into U.S. elections
YES 84%
NO
Complete rebuild" of the U.S. election system was needed to take money out of politics.
YES 85%
NO
Full disclosure of just who was providing all the money
YES 75%
NO
New York Times/NBCNews poll

33. “Everything in life is luck.” Donald Trump
Final Polls - who got it right?
Trafalgar Group(R) Trump +4
LA Times/USCTracking Trump +3
IBD/TIPP poll Trump +2
Gravis Clinton +1
RasmussenReports Clinton +2
OpinionSavvy Clinton +2
Princeton Clinton +2.2
Bloomberg Clinton +3
Reuters/Ipsos Clinton +3
Fivethirtyeight Clinton +3.6
CBS/NY Times Clinton +4
FOX Clinton +4
ABC/Wash Post Tracking Clinton +4
Economist/YouGov Clinton +4
Gravis Clinton +4
Monmouth Clinton +6
NOTE: Onlythree majorpollstersgotitrightand while manyof these predictionsare national,it
still didnotchange whoeach pollsterspredicatedwouldwinthe election.E.g.Fivethirtyeight’sNat
SilverpredictedClintonwouldwinwith302 EV and Trump235 EVs.
, Senior Strategist Trafalgar Group
Cahaly predicted a Trump win as he focused on the
battleground states and not the national polls. His
polling was heavily weighted on what his recipient
neighbors were voting for which counted the “shy
and hidden” vote, simple, but brilliant.
Cahalay said: “Provided that the vote counting in
Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida is legitimate
and not plagued with illegal or dead voters, it
appears that Trump is set to take not just two of
these states, but all three of them”.

34. Mark Elliott@markmobility
The death of political polling. In the 53 October polls in WI, MI and PA, TWO had Trump
ahead. (Both by @trfgrp!)
, Political science professor at Stony Brook University in New York State.
Northpoth predicted that Trump had a 97-
99% chance of winning. (Princeton had
Hillary 95% to 99% chance of winning).
Norpoth is not a fan of polls and focuses on
those certain to actually vote.
He says:” Ascertaining the opinions of 100
citizens is just a start. Now you have to
determine which 60 of them actually take the time to mark a ballot. They are the ‘likely
voters.’ They are the only ones that count. But to find them is no easy chore.”
“I think the polls just totally misjudged the potential and the kind of support that he (Trump)
engendered, and he just fell through the cracks of how they poll people,” he said. “Any time I
looked at a poll, at some of the fine print about the breakdowns to see what they were
weighting, I always saw a very heavy Democratic preponderance, which I thought was way
off, even bigger than in 2012.”
, advisor to the poll said: “Whereas most
polls simply ask voters to choose between alternatives,
the Daybreak poll attempts to determine the intensity of
voter preferences by asking how committed a
respondent is to his or her candidate (on a scale of 1 to
100).”
“In measuring voter intensity, the Daybreak poll’s results
do not contradict the consensus that Hillary Clinton has consistently attracted more
supporters than Donald Trump. It simply shows that Trump’s backers are more fervent —
and therefore more likely to actually vote”, he added.
The “Daybreak Poll” successfully predicted a Trump win for Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Florida and North Carolina

35. “If you're interested in 'balancing'work and pleasure, stop trying to balance
them. Instead make your work more pleasurable.”, Donald Trump
Both Clinton and Trump were well known entities to the market place, both high profiles
with vastly different and diverse resumes and branding.
“The only card [Hillary Clinton] has is the woman’scard. She’sgotnothing else
to offer and frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’tthink she’d get 5
percentof the vote. The only thing she’s gotgoing is the woman’scard, and the
beautifulthing is, women don’tlike her.”, DonaldTrump
The good
1. “Unofficially” elected as the Democratic candidate prior to the start of the Primaries
which made her an even money chance (50%) to be the next President 18 months
prior to the election. The number one pre-requisite to winning the top job is to win
the DNP nomination and that was already decided, unlike Trump who had 16 strong
GOP candidates to defeat.
2. Would have been the first female President
3. Hillary is a former First Lady and Secretary of State.
4. She had unpredicted funding and resources at her disposal including husband and
former Prez Bill Clinton, as well as Barrack Obama and his “rock star” wife Michelle.
5. She was assured of major support from the minorities including females, African
Americans and Hispanics.
6. She was assured of winning the major states California and New York.
7. She had 90% of the biased mainstream media against Trump.
8. Superior ground game

36. The bad
1. She was not accessible, rarely making a media conference.
2. Perceived as “elite” and being “owned” by the big end of town.
3. Would have inherited Obama-care & new premium increases.
4. Obama doubled the deficit and her economic plan was similar
5. For her to win, it would have meant three consecutive wins to the DNP
6. She did not offer real change
7. Inherited the lowest labour participation rate since the 1970s
8. Inherited almost 95m out of the labour force
9. Inherited the worst recovery since 1940s
10. Inherited the lowest home ownership rate in 51 years
11. An incremental 13million on food stamps under Obama
12. Inherited 43m living in poverty
1. Impact of WikiLeaks
2. Impact of her emails and server
3. Impact of the FBI and Director Comey
4. Impact of the Clinton Foundation
5. The impact of the 12% undecided voters
6. Her ability to sell her story to Middle America
7. Her ability to maintain a high black turnout
8. Could Prez Obama help her preserve the black vote?
Unknown data: Impact of the Clinton Foundation

37. The good
1. Had widespread name recognition
2. Self-made billionaire businessman
3. Introduce new subjects that touched a widespread of voters
4. Gained incremental “free” air time over Hillary valued at billions.
5. Not a Politician or part of the establishment
6. Appointing running mate Gov. Pence
7. Funded his own campaign; no one owned him.
8. Highly marketable family
9. Offered change
The Bad
1. Unknown in the White House
2. Had 90% of the mainstream media against him, marked him a racist.
3. Grossly underfunded compared to Clinton
4. Continued to put his “foot in his mouth” with one liners
5. Had massive minorities against him.
6. Own party against him
1. Would battleground states and the independents believe his story of “Make America
great Again”?
2. Impact of “Access Hollywood” tape
3. Impact of Muslim-American parents of Capt. Humayun Khan
4. Impact of 12 woman stating Trump abuse
5. Media skewing the wording and saying Trump called Mexicans “rapists”.
6. Impact banning Muslims
Campaign
Funds
Fundraising Super
PACS
TOTAL
Clinton 556m 544m 188m 1.288
Trump 248m 486m 60m 794

38. When Donald Trump claimed the keys to the White House it also signalled a massive “kick
in the guts” to the American mainstream media who, despite publishing never before seen
coverage, could not blunt the Trump machine.
The voting public could not be persuaded.
Donald Trump dawned a new era and proved that
his own social media is more influential than
newspapers and TVs.
You cannot get away with verbally abusing the
media and still go on to win the most important
Political election on the planet.
That is, off course, unless your name is Donald J. Trump.
The media has influenced political elections for over two hundred years and when the major
newspapers and TV stations are against you, it is considered close to hopeless.
That bias is bad enough but to call a press conference and label everyone in the room
"dishonest," "not good people, sleazy”, and “among the worst human beings I have ever
met, “should be the final nail in the coffin.
It is common knowledge that you cannot beat the media. They are too big, too strong and
too influential. They always get the last say and are relentless.
It is very rare for any thinking person to take on a “no win” fight, and it is unheard of for any
politician to attempt to commit political suicide like Trump consciously did.
Journalists have thick skins and they love the tough
and dirty stuff as they know they have the ability to
report to the public. They can take information, take
facts and skew (or should I say screw?) them to
influence their own agenda with no regard for the
truth.
This new breed is NOT defined as a journalist as we
know it, but commentators with a clear biased
agenda. They should declare their true colors upfront and not try to con the public that they
are “objective” journalists.

39. The new breed of biased liberal
commentators did not count on
someone like Trump to report on them
via his immense social media machine
and call them out. Clearly, the voters
loved it and took notice.
Trump could not have won the election
without his own communication
platform to “set the record straight”.
Social media and his availability to TV, especially on Fox News, blunted the negative impact
from the mainstream media.
That said, had Trump had the biased wide-spread media support like Hillary did, he would
have won the election by a wider margin and likely picked up more states like New
Hampshire. He would have also likely won the most popular vote.
Dennis Shanahan (pic), the Political Editor for “The Australian” newspaper was highly
critical of the widespread drop in journalistic standards and signalled out The New York
Times:” Rather than reporting what “could” happen, they told readers and viewers what
they thought “should” happen. At 10.20pm eastern time on election night in the US, even as
key states were flowing towards the Republicans, The New York Times website had a
headline: “Hillary Clinton has an 85 per cent chance to win”, he said.
“The behaviour of The Times raises
serious questions about how major
media institutions deal with the modern
age of journalistic advocacy, self--
referencing and reinforcing social media
and the insidious elements of clickbait
overcoming traditional standards and -
obligations”, he said. “It is a dereliction
of journalistic duty not to allow for
other than the outcome you want and
not to properly inform the public.”
Here is a twist. When Donald Trump launched his best seller “The Art of the Deal” in 1987 he
was a Democrat and the NY Times said: “Trump makes one believe for a moment in the
American dream again.”

40. WIKILEAKS REVEAL DNC EMAIL
ABC CNN NY TIMES
ASSOC. PRESS HUFF POST NPR
AURN LA TIMES POLITICO
BLOOMBERG MCCLATCHY REUTERS
BUZZFEED MSNBC THE HILL
CBS NAT JOURNAL WALL ST JOURNAL
CNBC NBC WASH POST
WikiLeaks expose how dozens of journalists from every major news organisation were
allegedly invited to be wined and dined at Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta’s
home.
“I try to learn from the past, but I plan for the future by focusing exclusively on
the present. That's were the fun is.”, Donald Trump
Donald J. Trump Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill.
I love Hispanics!
Trump is a big tough brash guy whois a journalist’s dream for controversial quotes, and
the left media took what he said about Mexicans out of its true context.
CORRECT: The TRUE context of Trumps meaning
They're bringing crime, theirrapists, and some, I assume, are good people.
In June 2015 Trump said:” When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best.
They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of
problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're
bringing crime, their rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.”
MISSLEADING: How the left media changed the meaning
They're bringing crime. They are rapists. And some, I assume, are good
people.
The mainstream media, and 538, inaccurately broadcast to the world that Trump has called
Mexican’s “Drug dealers and rapists”.

41. Many actually conveniently changed the spelling of a
key word and left out a fullstop to completely alter
what Trump said and meant.
The correct key line of Trumps quote was:” They're
bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. Their
(bringing) rapists, and some, I assume, are good
people.”
The media changed it to: “They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They are rapists.
And some, I assume, are good people.
When the spelling is THEIR, it means Mexican’s are bringing THEIR rapists. When it is spelt
THEY’RE or THEY ARE, it means that Trump is calling Mexicans rapists, a totally different
meaning when you add a full stop after rapists.
This is the amazing creativeness showing the power of the media and how they can
fabricate a story. Hillary gained plenty of mileage from this “one liner”, but ultimately she
was not a good enough candidate.
Despite the negative blowback to Trump from this quote, there is an argument to say that it
was what really launched his campaign. Everyone in America knew that Donald Trump was a
Presidential candidate after this quote, and many loved the idea of building a wall and
securing the border.
The positives may have outweighed the negatives long term.

42. Trump turned these below states from blue to red which gave him the Electoral College
pathway to the required 270 votes.
2012 2016 GAP 2012 2016 GAP
Obama Clinton Romney Trump
Iowa 52 42.2 -9.8 46.2 46.2 0
Ohio 50.7 43.5 -7.2 47.7 52.1 4.4
Michigan 54.2 47.3 -6.9 52.1 47.6 -4.5
Pennsylvania 52 47.6 -4.4 46.6 48.8 2.2
Wisconsin 52.8 46.9 -5.9 45.9 47.9 2
Florida 50 47.8 -2.2 49.1 49.1 0
AVERAGE % 52.0 45.9 -6.1 47.9 48.6 0.7
Clinton performed poorly (under 50%) in each of these “must win” states averaging 6.1%
points under Obama, while Trump not only won the states back, but improved on Romneys
returns by 0.7% with the crucial Ohio his best with 52.1% of the votes, 4.4% better than
Romney, 1.4% better than Obama and a massive 8.6% better than Clinton.
Ohio has an 83% white population compared to 72% across America.
President Obama had won Iowa twice but Hillary only received 42.2% of the votes or 9.8%
under Obama or 4% behind Trump.
Obama was not happy suggesting Hillary was lazy: "I believe we have better ideas, but I also
believed that good ideas don't matter if people don't hear them," he said, specifically
pointing to Iowa.
Obama said candidates must "show up everywhere" and establish "grassroots" support in
key states. He said he didn't win in Iowa because of favourable demographics, but because
he spent 87 days on the ground, going to fairs, VFW halls and "fish fries."
Obama Clinton Trump
Counties won from Obama 700 6 209
MAJORITY IN HOUSE
2008 2016 Loss/Gain
Democratic 257 194 -63
Republics 178 239 61

43. “Number one, I have greatrespectfor women. I was the one that really broke
the glass ceiling on behalf of women, more than anybodyin the construction
industry. “DonaldTrump
Let’s be very clear; if the U.S. Presidential election was based on the most popular vote as
opposed to who wins the Electoral vote based on states weightings, Donald Trump would
have still won based on my analysis.
Hillary Clinton won the most popular vote 48.2% to 46.1% largely because she won
California, the most populated state, and New York, the fourth most populated state by a
landslide. Texas (2) and Florida (3) were both close.
Even Hillary would have expected Donald to pick up more than 0.5% had he campaigned in
those States. He wisely chose not to as it would have been a gross waste of funds as no
amount of funding and campaigning in the big coastal states would have added to Trumps
306 Electoral votes.
State Clinton Trump
U.S. Total 65,788,567 62,955,343
Donald Trump is 100% correct when he tweeted: “If the election were based on total
popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger
and more easily “. He added: “The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all
states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!”
About 12 percent of the electorate wasn’t committed to either Trump or Clinton in final
national polls, as compared with just 3 percent in 2012.
Impact of the
"undecided" vote
2012 2016
The "undecided" vote 3% 12%
66% wins new votes 1% 3%
The approximate 12% of “undecided” voters is an increase of a staggering 9% from 2012,
and the angry voters wanted a change and were uncommitted to either candidate.
The strategy was simple; if Trump could hang in and stay within the margin of error, they
knew that Hillary’s real median figure was 45%. They also knew that they could win 66% of
the voters who were undecided in the last week of the election, especially as they had some

44. powerful “ammunition” with the Obama Care premiums forecast to rise all around the
country.
Election Republican counties won Democratic counties won
2016 2,623 489
2012 2,420 693
2008 2,238 875
2004 2,530 583
2000 2,397 659
Exit polls showed that undecided voters swung to Trump by a 10% margin in the last month
and that increased to 12% in the last week. These are massive numbers and would ensure
that Trump would get his target of 66% which would add another 3+% onto the poll
numbers – a winning figure.

45. “Whatseparatesthe winnersfrom the losersis how a person reactsto each
new twist of fate.” Donald Trump
TWITTER MOST POPLULAR SURROGATE
1 Katy Perry Clinton
2 Justin Bieber Clinton
3 Barack Obama Clinton
4 Taylor Swift Clinton
5 Lady Gaga Clinton
6 Rihanna Clinton
7 Justin Timberlake Clinton
8 Ellen DeGeneres Clinton
9 Britney Spears Clinton
10 Kim Kardashian West Clinton
The above list could have been much longer and would have all been Hillary voters.
Trump’s Digital guru Brad Parscale said that the use of digital technology and social media
allowed them to push their positive story and supress Clinton, so why was this strategy not a
major advantage for Hillary?
Brad Parscale said: “having the information and knowing how to analyse it and what to do
with it is two different things.”
The Clinton campaign had desktop access to almost every American when you consider their
vast social media reach with the Clintons and the Obamas, and then add nearly every
popular celebrity on Facebook and Twitter and their ability to “touch “Americans far
outweighed what the Trumps were capable of doing.
The Trumps had less money and less access to social media followers, but they invested
their funds smarter, especially in the battlegrounds specifically targeting the late deciders
who were uncommitted.
The Trump digital team were also able to analyse their
data in a far superior manner to the Clinton team
enabling them generate a winning strategy.
This was marketing and business development at its
best and showed the immense power of social media
if used correctly.

46. I was one of Donald Trump’s 14
million Facebook followers during
the campaign and whenever I
checked my page the Trump rally
of the day, or one of them, would
jump out on my screen with the
Donald selling his story. Frankly, it
blew me away as I could look at
past rallies or view them live in
real time.
I actually had Fox News on and they crossed to a Trump rally live and to my astonishment, it
replicated what was on my computer screen via Facebook while I was sitting on the other
side of the world in Sydney, Australia.
Powerful stuff, and may just have been the edge to decide the most influential man in the
free world.
Date Battleground Celebrities Result
Nov. 04 Ohio Beyonce, Jay Z LOST
Nov. 05 Pensylvamia Katy Perry LOST
Nov. 07 Pensylvamia Bruce Springsteen LOST
Nov. 08 North Carolina Lady Gaga, Jon Bon Jovi LOST
The Hillary team concluded that celebrity power would be an asset, but with the struggling
voters it had the opposite effect.
What was evident is when Hillary Clinton stood on stage with a famous celebrity the
spotlight went off her. The celebrity became more important on stage.
It would not matter who was on stage with Donald Trump, he would always command the
spotlight.
In vast contrast, the Trump team elected to have no celebrities. This made Trump THE star
on stage as he talked about the rising costs in Obama Care and how he would improve the
economy and bring job growth back.
Listening to “Born in the USA” is great if you are a fan of “the boss”, but if you have an
audience who are concerned about their jobs in the future then Hillary would have been
better advised to be singing about her economy plan.

47. Paul Krishnamurty is a winning professional punter who got the election wrong; he told me
what he thought made the difference to Trump:
The PoliticalGambler.com founder Paul Khrisnamurty
“For me the key thing is differential turnout in the swing states. The national polls were
broadly right and she'll comfortably win the popular vote. But she utterly failed to get her
base out in PA, MI and WI, whereas Trump maximised his. I always felt the first 2 were his
only hope and will be forever sick about not covering them. Michael Moore called all those
states right months ago. Astonishingly, it seems Clinton made virtually no effort in MI & WI,
taking them for granted. I think, because the polls understated Obama in 2012, they skewed
this sample to Dems. But in fact, Obama was a uniquely strong candidate. All other left
candidates in UK/USA this century have failed to maximise their younger base.”
2016 % Total Voters
Total Votes 55.4 126 million
H. Clinton 26.5
D. Trump 26.3
Voter turnout was a 20 year low in 2016.

48. Paul added his post-election thoughts on his Political Gambler blog: “Trump redrew the
map in a way other Republicans have only dreamed – that fact is unarguable…Likewise,
whilst the 2016 election was always in reality a Clinton v Trump head-to-head, polls
consistently showed the public were interested in other options – either via a historically high
number of undecided voters, or Gary Johnson and Jill Stein scoring double digits
combined…Trump owes his electoral college victory to the fact that he dominated among
late deciders and the collapse in both Johnson and Stein’s support…It is way too early to
predict the effect of Trumpism on US politics. There is definitely a yearning for extra choices
and in some respects the rise of Trump and Bernie Sanders reflects that. Both parties could
undergo ideological transformation, but we can only wait and see how that affects voting
behaviour.
My comment to Paul during the primaries was that Trump, like Obama, was also a uniquely
strong candidate and the market did not know how to qualify him because they had never
seen anyone like him. He got this one wrong, but he still remains the most astute judge I
know.
Turnout Up 2012 2016
Florida 8.5m 9.4m
Michigan 4.7m 4.8m
N. Carolina 4.6m 4.7m
The Trump impact is indicated above with working class whites getting out voting in these
key swing states which was against a national 20 year low turnout.
Paul Krishnamurty mentioned Michael Mooreand he was correctabout his
analysis, hereis the testimony why you should never judge a book by its cover:
Midwest Math,
or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit.
“I believe Trump is going to focus much of his
attention on the four blue states in the rustbelt of
the upper Great Lakes – Michigan, Ohio,
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In the Michigan
primary in March, more Michiganders came out to
vote for the Republicans (1.32 million) that the Democrats (1.19 million). Trump is ahead of
Hillary in the latest polls in Pennsylvania and tied with her in Ohio. Tied? How can the race
be this close after everything Trump has said and done? Well maybe it’s because he’s said
(correctly) that the Clintons’ support of NAFTA helped to destroy the industrial states of the
Upper Midwest. Trump is going to hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and other
trade policies that have royally screwed the people of these four states. When Trump stood
in the shadow of a Ford Motor factory during the Michigan primary, he threatened the
corporation that if they did indeed go ahead with their planned closure of that factory and
move it to Mexico, he would slap a 35% tariff on any Mexican-built cars shipped back to the
United States. It was sweet, sweet music to the ears of the working class of Michigan, and

49. when he tossed in his threat to Apple that he would force them to stop making their iPhones
in China and build them here in America, well, hearts swooned and Trump walked away with
a big victory that should have gone to the governor next-door, John Kasich.
And this is where the math comes in. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. Add up
the electoral votes cast by Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It’s 64. All Trump
needs to do to win is to carry, as he’s expected to do, the swath of traditional red states from
Idaho to Georgia (states that’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton), and then he just needs these
four rust belt states. He doesn’t need Florida. He doesn’t need Colorado or Virginia. Just
Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top. This is how
it will happen in November.
REPORT CARD: 4/4 Trump did win all Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
The Last Stand of the Angry White Man. Our male-dominated, 240-year run of the USA is
coming to an end. A woman is about to take over! How did this happen?! On our watch!
There were warning signs, but we ignored them. Nixon, the gender traitor, imposing Title IX
on us, the rule that said girls in school should get an equal chance at playing sports. Then
they let them fly commercial jets. Before we knew it, Beyoncé stormed on the field at this
year’s Super Bowl (our game!) with an army of Black Women, fists raised, declaring that our
domination was hereby terminated! Oh, the humanity!
That’s a small peek into the mind of the Endangered White Male. There is a sense that the
power has slipped out of their hands that their way of doing things is no longer how things
are done. This monster, the “Feminazi,”the thing that as Trump says, “bleeds through her
eyes or wherever she bleeds,” has conquered us — and now, after having had to endure
eight years of a black man telling us what to do, we’re supposed to just sit back and take
eight years of a woman bossing us around? After that it’ll be eight years of the gays in the
White House! Then the transgenders! You can see where this is going. By then animals will
have been granted human rights and a fuckin’ hamster is going to be running the country.
This has to stop!
REPORT CARD: “Regrettably the testimony says the blue collar white male probably won
Trump the Presidency.” Correct.
The Hillary Problem. Can we speak honestly, just among ourselves? And before we do, let
me state, I actually like Hillary – a lot – and I think she has been given a bad rap she doesn’t
deserve. But her vote for the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her
again. To date, I haven’t broken that promise. For the sake of preventing a proto-fascist from
becoming our commander-in-chief, I’m breaking that promise. I sadly believe Clinton will find
a way to get us in some kind of military action. She’s a hawk, to the right of Obama. But
Trump’s psycho finger will be on The Button, and that is that. Done and done.
Let’s face it: Our biggest problem here isn’t Trump – it’s Hillary. She is hugely unpopular —
nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old way
of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. That’s why
she fights against gays getting married one moment, and the next she’s officiating a gay

50. marriage. Young women are among her biggest detractors,which has to hurt considering it’s
the sacrifices and the battles that Hillary and other women of her generation endured so
that this younger generation would never have to be told by the Barbara Bushes of the world
that they should just shut up and go bake some cookies. But the kids don’t like her, and not a
day goes by that a millennial doesn’t tell me they aren’t voting for her. No Democrat, and
certainly no independent, is waking up on November 8th excited to run out and vote for
Hillary the way they did the day Obama became president or when Bernie was on the
primary ballot. The enthusiasm just isn’t there. And because this election is going to come
down to just one thing — who drags the most people out of the house and gets them to the
polls — Trump right now is in the catbird seat.
REPORT CARD: Correct; Hillary’s base did not turn out and Trumps were energized.
The Depressed Sanders Vote. Stop fretting about Bernie’s supporters not voting for Clinton –
we’re voting for Clinton! The polls already show that more Sanders voters will vote for Hillary
this year than the number of Hillary primary voters in ’08 who then voted for Obama. This is
not the problem. The fire alarm that should be going off is that while the average Bernie
backer will drag him/herself to the polls that day to somewhat reluctantly vote for Hillary, it
will be what’s called a “depressed vote” – meaning the voter doesn’t bring five people to
vote with her. He doesn’t volunteer 10 hours in the month leading up to the election. She
never talks in an excited voice when asked why she’s voting for Hillary. A depressed voter.
Because, when you’re young, you have zero tolerance for phonies and BS. Returning to the
Clinton/Bush era for them is like suddenly having to pay for music, or using MySpace or
carrying around one of those big-ass portable phones. They’re not going to vote for Trump;
some will vote third party, but many will just stay home. Hillary Clinton is going to have to do
something to give them a reason to support her — and picking a moderate, bland-o, middle
of the road old white guy as her running mate is not the kind of edgy move that tells
millennials that their vote is important to Hillary. Having two women on the ticket – that was
an exciting idea. But then Hillary got scared and has decided to play it safe. This is just one
example of how she is killing the youth vote.
REPORT CARD: Hillary significantly underperformed with voters under the age of 40. Among
those aged 30–39, Obama won 54 percent in 2008; Clinton won 51 percent in 2016. Among
those aged 25–29, Obama won 66 percent in 2008; Clinton won 53 percent in 2016. Among
those aged 18–24, Obama won 66 percent in 2008; Clinton won 56 percent in 2016.
The Jesse Ventura Effect. Finally, do not discount the electorate’s ability to be mischievous
or underestimate how many millions fancy themselves as closet anarchists once they draw
the curtain and are all alone in the voting booth. It’s one of the few places left in society
where there are no security cameras, no listening devices, no spouses, no kids, no boss, no
cops, there’s not even a friggin’ time limit. You can take as long as you need in there and no
one can make you do anything. You can push the button and vote a straight party line, or
you can write in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. There are no rules. And because of that,
and the anger that so many have toward a broken political system, millions are going to vote
for Trump not because they agree with him, not because they like his bigotry or ego, but just
because they can. Just because it will upset the apple cart and make mommy and daddy
mad. Remember back in the ‘90s when the people of Minnesota elected a professional

51. wrestler as their governor? They didn’t do this because they’re stupid or thought that Jesse
Ventura was some sort of statesman or political intellectual. They did so just because they
could. Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country. It is also filled with people who
have a dark sense of humor — and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical
joke on a sick political system. This is going to happen again with Trump.”
REPORT CARD: Robert Cahaly, the senior strategist from Trafalgar Group correctly predicted a
Trump win based on what he calls the “shy and hidden” vote. This is unproven, but none the
less, a possible pass mark.
AUTHORS COMMENT: Well done Mr. Moore you are not just a pretty face. This was
THE most brilliant early analysis of the Presidential race published.
Not only did Michael Moore get it right, but he “despises” Donald Trump which shows that
he can be objective maintaining clear thinking as well as throwing in a sprinkle of logic,
common sense and gut (it’s a beauty) feel.
It is a shame that you are so clever, but do so many dumb and destructive things. Donald
Trump won the election, based on the rules, fair and square so it’s time to let go. He won
five states that Barrack Obama won twice with an Electoral Vote margin of 306 to 232.
To even mention the “popular vote” is inane as it was never part of the rules. Four previous
Presidents have not won the popular vote, John Quincy (1824), Rutherford Hayes (1876),
Ben Harrison (1888) and George W. Bush (2000).
Trump won 220 counties that had voted for Obama in 2012, while Clinton won only 17 that
had gone for Romney in 2012. Hillary only won 487 counties out of 3,141.
However you put it Mr Moore, this was a thrashing that
according to Democratic pollster Doug Schoen, his party may
never recover as we knew it.

52. Republicans were furious when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
announced 16 days prior to the election that premiums on the Affordable Care Act’s
(Obama Care) individual marketplaces will go up by an average of more than 20 percent for
the 2017 plan year.
The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services was Sylvia Mathews
Burwell, a former White House Deputy Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, but she
certainly did not do Hillary any favours.
This announcement was a message from heaven for Trump, and the Clinton campaign did a
shocking job at pouring cold water on the news which really only impacted a small
percentage of the population, but never let the facts get in the way of a good story and
Trump sold it brilliantly as he flew from battleground to battleground promising to repeal
and replace Obama Care.
OBAMACARE PREMIUM INCREASES
Wisconsin 16%
Minnesota 59%
Utah 20%
Iowa 25%
Pennsylvania 53%
Florida 14%
Maine 15%
New Hampshire 2%
Michigan 7%
North Carolina 40%
Momentum is a big thing in any race and a poll published by the ABC NEWS/Washington
Post one week before the election was startling when they asked who is the most
“Trustworthy and Honest”?

53. Honest & Trustworthy
Clinton Trump
38% 46%
What was more crucial in weighting was not the final figure, but this was the first time that
Trump had over taken Clinton and the “winning post” was in view only one week away.
This absolutely vital stat was not weighted by most data analysts, but it was by the Trump
analytic team led by Jared Kushner.
This poll was a massive 14 point drop in confidence of Hillary Clinton from voters in less
than a month who were undecided orclassed as independent.
This meant that several “toss up” voters should swing to Trump but importantly bring others
into play in “Hillary States” like Michigan and Pennsylvania, and as it turned out Wisconsin.
Trump had an 8 point advantage in the last week with honesty and trustworthiness and this
transferred to assist him based on exit polls. The chart below shows that Trump had an 11
point advantage over Clinton in the battleground states with late voters.
The influential polls all showed this momentum and if you take Trump’s Real Clear Politics
average on these states and add the late undecided voters with 66% of the votes you will
see why Donald J. Trump won the election and why it was not that difficult to predict.
STATE CLINTON TRUMP
Minnesota 31 53
Utah 19 41
Iowa 34 54
Pennsylvania 37 54
Florida 38 55
Maine 33 49
New Hampshire 37 52
Michigan 39 50
North Carolina 41 49
New Mexico 41 46
Ohio 43 46
Virginia 45 42
Nevada 45 40
Georgia 52 42
Wisconsin 30 59
Source: National Exit Poll % Avg.
38% 49%

54. The chart below shows if you take the Real Clear Politics average and add 3% for the late
deciding independents you would have correctly had Trump winning Pennsylvania, Iowa,
Florida, Nth Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, Arizona and Missouri. Michigan would have been a
“borderline” predication for Trump.
If you had have told any pundit that Trump would win Pennsylvania, Iowa, Florida, Nth
Carolina and Ohio they would have replied that “Trump will be the new President” and that
is how it turned out.
RCP Avg. RCP
Avg.
RCP Avg. plus
Independents
Battleground CLINTON TRUMP WINNER MARGIN Add 3%
Wisconsin 6.5 Trump 1
Minnesota 6.2 Clinton 1.4
Maine 4.5 Clinton 2.7
Michigan 3.4 Trump 0.3
Colorado 2.9 Clinton 2.9 Colorado
Pennsylvania 1.9 Trump 1.2 Pennsylvania
Iowa 3 Trump 9.6 Iowa
Florida 0.2 Trump 1.3 Florida
New Hampshire 0.6 Clinton 0.2 New H’shire
North Carolina 1 Trump 3.8 Nth Carolina
Ohio 3.5 Trump 8.6 Ohio
Virginia 5 Clinton 4.9 Virginia
Nevada 0.8 Clinton 2.4 Nevada
Georgia 4.8 Trump 5.7 Georgia
Arizona 4 Trump 4.1 Arizona
Missouri 11 Trump 19.1 Missouri
AVERAGE 4.2 3.4 4.3
1. If you take the Real Clear Politics average and include toss ups to the leaning
candidate you would get Clinton winning with 272 from Trump’s 266. This shows
that it was very close and Trump was only one swing state away from winning.
2. If you add the 12% of late deciding voters and determine that Trumps wins 66% of
them which is worth 3% then he would win Pennsylvania (20) and New Hampshire
(4). Even though he did not win NH, the 4 points would have given this model Trump
270 electoral votes and enough to win, but 20 points from PA put him over the top
on 290 votes. He actually replaced NH with Michigan (20) and Wisconsin (10).

55. Even without a strategy that included late deciders, the raw average state figures in the toss
up states indicated only 6 electoral votes between the two contenders. When you include
the late deciders Trump wins easily.
RCP
AVERAGE
with Toss
Ups out
Toss Ups
Allocated
with Late
Deciders
CLINTON 203 272 239
TRUMP 164 266 299
TOSS UPS 171 0 0
Based on the chart above which is simple common sense with little science, how did almost
every pundit get the final analyse so horribly wrong?
I firmly believe they were influenced by the mainstream media and inaccurate exit polls.

56. Donald Trump got it right when he said: “In the end, you're measured not by how much you
undertake but by what you finally accomplish.”
The U.S. economy needed to be in good shape and the African Americans needed to get out
and vote. That was how President Obama could help Hillary, but he failed to deliver on both
counts.
Donald Trump, as president-elect, meets with President Barack Obama. (Getty)
State Clinton Trump Clinton
%
Trump
%
Dem
'12
Margin
Dem
'16
Margin
Margin
Shift
U.S. Total 65,788,567 62,955,343 48.2% 46.1% 3.90% 2.1% -1.8%
13 Swing States 21,433,214 22,249,342 46.6% 48.3% 3.60% -1.8% -5.4%
Non-Swing
States
44,355,353 40,706,001 49.0% 45.0% 4.00% 4.0% 0.0%

57. FACTS: Donald Trump won the vital 13 swing states by a margin of 1.8%, a massive 5.4%
margin shift from Obama’s 2012 figures. This was an election turner.
Total '12
Votes
Total '16
Votes
16 vs.
'12
U.S. Total 129,075,630 136,499,945 5.80%
13 Swing States 43,939,918 46,030,623 4.80%
Non-Swing
States
85,135,712 90,469,322 6.30%
FACTS: Voting was up 5.8% nationally, but the Hillary young and black voters in the swing
states were down. The Obama voters did not listen to him and come out.
Obama Seats Seats
Democrats House of Reps US Senate
2009 235 60
2016 194 46
Legacy -41 -14
FACTS: Under President Obama, Democrats have lost over 900 state legislature seats, 12
governors, 69 House seats (lowest since 1929), and 14 Senate seats. He has turned the USA
to RED.
 Obama is the only U.S. President in history not to grow the GDP by 3 percent over a
single year.
 Americans below the poverty line increased by 3.5 percent.
 Real median household income decreased by 2.3 percent
 National debt — $10.63 trillion then vs. $19.19 trillion.
Trump Won 30 out of 50 states, more counties than any GOP candidate since Ronald
Reagan.
Election Republican
counties won
Democratic
counties won
Independent
counties won
2016 2,623 489 0
2012 2,420 693 0
2008 2,238 875 0
2004 2,530 583 0
2000 2,397 659 0
America Counties turn red

58. “All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me - consciously or
unconsciously. That'sto be expected.” Donald Trump
The media would advise readers that Trump was “sexist” and women would not vote for
him. He defeated Hillary for 10 points in the white women vote; in fact Hillary recorded less
than Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008.
WHITE WOMEN VOTE REPUPLICAN
2004 2008 2012 2016
BUSH 55% MCCAIN 53% ROMNEY 56% TRUMP 53%
KERRY 44% OBAMA 46% OBAMA 42% CLINTON 43%
53 percent of white women voted for Trump, while 94 percent of black women and 68
percent of Latina women voted for Clinton.
Trump’s elegant daughter Ivanka is credited with assisting her father with the women’s
vote. As one voter put it: "If Trump produced someone that classy, that's a testament to
something,"

59. TRUMP to Black America: You're living in poverty, your schoolsare
no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth isunemployed, whatthe
hell do you have to lose?" Trump said at a speech in Dimondale, Michigan.
The next election in 2020 will represent 100 years of women having the right tovote and
President Trump more than any demographic, must win the female vote from African
American and young white women.
Age is not the problem, Trump will be 74 in the next Presidential election cycle, but his
greatest challenge is the perception he holds with African Americans and selling his message
to the Bernie Sanders millennials.
It is very difficult, some would say near impossible, to win an election when only 8% of a key
demographic – the blacks – vote for you.
The media have labelled Trump a “racist”, but he performed better than Romney in 2012 in
the Black vote and better than Bush in 2008 but they both had to take on black candidate
Barrack Obama.
Winning the black vote appears more of a
Republican problem than a Trump issue. The
Democratic Party have convinced Black America
that the GOP is “racists”.
It is ironic that the most famous Republican,
Abraham Lincoln (pic) was the politician who
initiated the Bill to end slavery of African
Americans.
The GOP has done a poor job in selling this fact
to today’s African Americans. 8% is a horrifying
figure to overcome and it is difficult to find the
data that justifies such a wide spread.
Certainly an America under its first black President, Barrack Obama did not improve key
areas that blacks have suffered especially huge youth unemployment.

60. An estimated 23.7 million young voters participated in the 2016 presidential election,
which is 50% of citizens aged 18-29 in the United States. An estimated 13 million youths
voted for Hillary Clinton and almost 9 million voted for Donald Trump. An additional 2
million young people either voted for third-party candidates or chose not to vote for any of
the Presidential candidates.
Clinton Trump
Aged 18 - 29 55% 37%
Aged 18 - 29 (White) 43% 48%
Aged 18 - 29 (Blacks) 83% 9%
Aged 18 - 29 (Latino) 70% 24%
Even though Hillary easily won the youth vote (55% to 37%) over Trump, she was still down
over 10% from President Obama four years earlier, and this key fact contributed heavily to
Trump winning swing states Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Trump managed to win the White youth vote 48% to 43%, but he polled poorly with African
Americans (down 74%) and Latinos (down 46%) from Hillary.
A major share of this key demographic was ear marked for Bernie Sanders but when he was
eliminated from the Democratic primaries many of his followers were disgruntled and
unable to settle on an alternative from either party.
The next election cycle in 2020 will introduce “new blood” again who were aged between
between14 and 17 in election 2016 and the Trump administration has a heap of work to do
to win them over, especially with African Americans and Hispanics. The good news for him is
that he had no previous record in politics and with only 9% on young blacks supporting him,
he starts from a low base and likely can only go up.
Voters Under 40
2008 36%
2012 36%
2016 36%
Clinton Voters Under 40 To Obama
Aged 30 - 39 51% Down 3%
Aged 25 - 29 53% Down 13%
Aged 18 - 24 56% Down 10%