All errors should be reported to

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Chuck Todd, slow learner

OK, Chuck Todd said that on January 25, 2015. Surely now, 17 months later, he has learned his lesson.


From Charlie Cook of the National Journal:
The latest round of polls re­leased pri­or to Me­mori­al Day week­end, which showed Hil­lary Clin­ton and Don­ald Trump in a vir­tu­al tie, set off in­tense hand-wringing among Demo­crats, Clin­ton back­ers, and Trump de­tract­ors alike.
But down was up, according to Cook:
On NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, the al­ways-pres­ci­ent mod­er­at­or Chuck Todd said much the same thing but ap­proached it in an­oth­er way. First Todd poin­ted to the May 15-19 NBC News/Wall Street Journ­al poll, not­ing that Sanders bested Trump in the sur­vey by 15 points, 54 to 39 per­cent, while Clin­ton had a scant 3-point edge over Trump, 46 to 43 per­cent. Todd then cal­cu­lated that if 70 per­cent of the voters who sup­por­ted Sanders against Trump sub­sequently moved in­to Clin­ton’s corner, she would then have an 8-point lead, 51 to 43 per­cent.
Shift­ing 70 per­cent of Sanders’s sup­port­ers in­to the Clin­ton column in the May 13-17 CBS News/New York Times poll would en­large her lead over Trump from 6 points, 47 to 41 per­cent, to 9 points, 50 to 41 per­cent. Do­ing the same thing us­ing the May 14-17 Fox News sur­vey, which showed Trump ahead by 3 points, 45 to 42 per­cent, would pro­duce a tie, 45 to 45 per­cent. Todd poin­ted out that in the first 2008 NBC/WSJ poll after Clin­ton dropped out against Barack Obama, Obama moved up 3 points, a sign that Clin­ton sup­port­ers were get­ting in line. This is a nat­ur­al de­vel­op­ment after con­tested nom­in­a­tions are settled.
Keep­ing in mind that there are more Demo­crats than Re­pub­lic­ans, and that 90 per­cent of par­tis­ans end up vot­ing for their re­spect­ive party’s pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee, it’s not sur­pris­ing that Demo­crats have had party iden­ti­fic­a­tion ad­vant­ages in four of the five most re­cent na­tion­al polls: 2 points in CBS/NYT (33 to 31 per­cent), 5 points in NBC/WSJ (34 to 29 per­cent), 6 points in Gal­lup (31 to 25 per­cent), and 8 points in ABC/Wash­ing­ton Post (33 to 25 per­cent); only the Fox News poll gave the GOP an edge in party af­fil­i­ation, 41 to 40 per­cent.  
So it is lo­gic­al that Demo­crats have an ad­vant­age of a few points once the nom­in­a­tions are truly settled and par­tis­ans have had time to make peace with their can­did­ates. In the NBC/WSJ poll, a gen­er­ic pres­id­en­tial race showed 47 per­cent pre­fer­ring a Demo­crat­ic pres­id­ent to 43 per­cent opt­ing for a Re­pub­lic­an. Like­wise, when poll­sters meas­ure fa­vor­able-un­fa­vor­able or pos­it­ive-neg­at­ive rat­ings, Demo­crats main­tain a steady ad­vant­age over Re­pub­lic­ans.
In short, the parties have not evolved at the same rate. Trump has had the Re­pub­lic­an field to him­self and has be­gun heal­ing party wounds, such as he can, while Clin­ton has not yet been af­forded that op­por­tun­ity be­cause she has been busy fight­ing off Sanders.
Always prescient?

Let us review:

“Nobody’s going to mistake Donald Trump for a presidential candidate, I don’t think, other than Donald Trump,” Chuck Todd said on his Meet the Press show on NBC on January 25, 2015.

“On Wednesday, we reached peak Donald Trump, with two national TV interviews, including one by NBC News’ Katy Tur. We also learned on Wednesday that RNC Chair Reince Priebus called Trump and asked him to tone down his rhetoric on immigration — yet another acknowledgement of how the New York real-estate mogul is hurting the party. But here’s a fairly safe prediction: Trump’s poll position in the GOP race is going to go down. It might not happen tomorrow, or next month before the first debate, or the month after that. But it’s going to happen. And it won’t be due to immigration, but instead past statements on a slew of important issues to the GOP base,” Chuck Todd of NBC wrote on July 9, 2015.

"Making sense of Trump’s bump in the polls: As the political world tries to make sense of Donald Trump and his rise in the polls, it’s worth taking a stroll down memory lane. Four years ago, in the April 2011 NBC/WSJ poll, your early leaders in the national GOP presidential horserace were Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and, yes, Donald Trump (!!!). In the July 2011 NBC/WSJ poll, the leaders were Romney and Michele Bachmann. In August, it was Rick Perry and Romney. In October, it was Herman Cain and Romney. A month later, it was Romney and Cain again. And in December 2011, it was Newt Gingrich and Romney. So what does that tell us? For starters, the GOP race was incredibly volatile, always featuring Romney vs. an anti-Romney alternative flavor the month. But maybe more importantly, it was about an anti-Romney constituency in search of a candidate. These were voters who weren’t wild about Romney, who weren’t wild about the Republican establishment as a whole, but who wanted someone else. And eventually, they settled on Rick Santorum (the last anti-Romney standing). So if that lesson from 2011-2012 taught us anything, it’s that Trump’s rise isn’t about Donald Trump; folks, he isn’t going to be the GOP’s nominee. Rather, it’s about where his supporters/voters go. Trump’s constituency is very real and perhaps durable – even if they end up candidate shopping again," Chuck Todd on July 22, 2015.


Give me a break.

After being wrong all last year about the nomination, Todd is working hard to be wrong this year about the general election.

Oh and Cook, he gets a brief mention in my book:
However, Washington knew best. Charlie Cook, a political-race handicapper who was popular in the capital, blew off the New Hampshire win.
“I still see Trump as more of a protest candidate, a vehicle for the angry, anti-establishment mood among many Republicans, rather than someone who many Republicans will see as a realistic president. It should be remembered that Trump’s 34 percent New Hampshire performance means that 66 percent of Republicans did not vote for him,” Cook wrote.
Remember that nonsense? The field had five major contenders at the time and the lion's share went to the lion -- Trump -- but the experts kept saying Trump was losing because he as not the unanimous choice.

Keep whistling past that graveyard, Washington press corps.


  1. Predicting is hard. Predicting the future, correctly, is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay harder.

  2. Hard to read that Todd quote now without thinking: "Hey, Chuck, Kansas called. They want their corn back."

  3. The pundits were wrong about Trump, they are wrong about Hillary. She will not be the Democrat nominee. Here's why.

    The biggest news of the day comes from Judicial Watch, which released a transcript of the deposition they just took of Cheryl Mills, Hillary's Chief of Staff at State. Mills' attorney refused to let her client answer lots of questions concerning the infamous private email server. Why is that? The lawyer cited attorney-client privilege. What, you say? What attorney and what client was she talking about?

    Ahhh, you haven't been paying close attention, have you? As I noted here in a post way, way back, when it was the FBI's turn to interview Mills, certain questions were ruled off limits on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. But the press articles never explained who the attorney was and none of them specifically named the client.

    I thought that was very strange. Because no one was named, I suspected the attorney was Mills and the client was Clinton. I wrote that it was a very suspicious arrangement indeed that, in Clinton hiring Mills in the capacity as her attorney, after both of them left State, to sort out her "personal" emails from the "official" ones on the private server, Clinton appeared to be setting up a situation where she could claim attorney-client privilege in order to shield Mills from ever having to testify under oath about the email setup. As Hillary's Chief of Staff, Mills would have had to answer the interrogatories put to her by both the FBI and Judicial Watch, or else plead the 5th A. But once Mills became Clinton's attorney of record, Mills could refuse to answer those same questions without having to plead the 5th, which could make her look just a tiny bit guilty.

    Well, first, I was right in my speculation about the arrangement. But what does it all mean? I'll speculate again: there was something in her personal emails that Clinton absolutely had to hide from the public, something she knew would get her indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to very serious jail time, probably on a public corruption charge. The attorney-client arrangement with Mills was dreamed up to hide this criminal activity. It was done with the intention to obstruct justice.

    Second, this malodorous scheme puts the lie to Hillary's repeated public statements that she has always been open to talk to the FBI because she has nothing to hide, and that she has told her former staff at State to do the same. That's complete, utter Clinton bullpuckey. She is now revealed as an inveterate liar and a criminal. Given that Judicial Watch has released the transcript of Mills' deposition, let's see if the press is willing to connect the dots, or will it continue to cover for the Clinton Crime Family. I think we all know what the press will do.

  4. Is it too much to ask that Don provide "Trump The Press" in a convenient aerosol pack? These Leftards buzzing around me are getting really annoying, and let's face it, T.T.P.'s efficacy against Leftist imbecility is something that D.D.T. could only ever dream of.