So much for that strategy.
These days I don't really know where to go. Breitbart and Drudge are just as biased for Trump as the NYTimes and the MSM are against him. Fox news is a shipwreck if you're more interested in facts than personalities. It's very hard to find a place that gives any idea of what's really going on. There is far too much noise and far too little signal to get any idea.
Central to my concern is this story. It's a few weeks old, but still highly relevant, and I can't figure out what there isn't anyone who is talking about it:
Per Politico, in 2008 and 2012, Obama received 95% of the 1.7mm votes cast by black voters in Florida. Unfortunately for Hillary, a recent poll from Florida Atlantic University found that she is only polling at 68% among black voters while Trump is polling at 20%. Now, if you assume that black voter turnout drops just 5% in 2016 and that Hillary's support drops from 95% to 70% that could cost her over 500,000 votes in a state that Obama only won by roughly 75,000. When factoring in the higher support for Trump this could swing the overall Florida race by 7 points...not a good sign when Obama narrowly won the state by less than 1%.
The same basic rule is going to hold true in all the swing states. But as far as I can tell, none of the polling is incorporating lower black voter turnout into their models. So unless you believe that Hillary really is going to garner the same adoring attention from black voters in 2016 as Obama did in his elections, there is really going to be a major problem with the polling this year.
I'm sure all the 'Trump is a raciss!' talk on the left will drive a few blacks out to vote on election day, and they'll reliably do what they're told. But they don't hate Trump nearly as much as they love Obama. He's the greatest thing to happen to black America since Martin Luther King first landed on the moon.
I also don't want to fall into the trap of simply ignoring the polls as they stand. There is real information there, particularly with those polls that expose their weighting decisions and process (which are several). But why isn't anyone talking about this?
Maybe with the defection of National Review and half the Republican party insiders to the Democrat team, there isn't anyone supporting the Republican candidate who actually understands this stuff? I realize the campaign has it's own agenda to talk about and a limited amount of air time to discuss it. Discussions about polling usually fall to the talking heads. But with Trump's general media antipathy, and the out and out panic he's causing in the establishment right, maybe all the people who know, are now people who don't want to discuss it?
And all told, I can't believe no one has taken notice of the fact that Hillary Clinton is not in fact a tall condescending black man from Hawaii.
And by the way guys, if you ever wanted an example of the kind of frame control the media does to turn news into propaganda, I think this is a good example. I didn't say that NR is supporting Hillary. I could deny saying it, and challenge anyone who accuses me of it to show me where that language is. It's not there. It's assumed. It's unquotable. You can't paste it into twitter and make me look like an a-hole. Bring on your idiotic 'fact checkers'. That blurb has what the Clinton's like to call 'plausible deniability'
Do I think NR is supporting Hillary? I think it's pretty clear what I think. But I still get to deny it anyway, and no one can prove what I think one way or the other. And that's coming from a totally amateur hack like me, who can't even manage to get his spelling and punctuation right with a spellchecker involved.
Just imagine all the bias the MSM who do this professionally are adding to their 'news'.