Rain­ing cats and Trump; and aliases

Jamaica Gleaner - - IN FOCUS - Eger­ton Chang

IT SEEMS that while he had ef­fi­ciently con­signed the cam­paigns of his GOP ri­vals to the dogs, Trump has spe­cially re­served his to go to the cats.

Though it was true that fol­low­ing Trump’s poor per­for­mance in the first pres­i­den­tial de­bate, the polls had been mov­ing sig­nif­i­cantly in Hil­lary’s favour, it would seem that this re­cent rev­e­la­tion of a pussy­cat in the bush, á la Billy Bush of Ac­cess Hol­ly­wood, has re­ally put Hil­lary ir­re­vo­ca­bly out of reach.

And de­spite the fact that Don­ald did not per­form as badly as in the first, the op­tics of ‘stalk­ing’ Hil­lary and his petty, ly­ing, vi­rago (an an­gry woman who of­ten com­plains about and crit­i­cises other peo­ple) tongue­lash­ing pre­sen­ta­tion in the sec­ond de­bate hasn’t helped his cause.

In my col­umn of Au­gust 21, 2016, ti­tled Im­mor­tal Bolt; dump Trump; and tax amnesty, I wrote:

“I have a far-out theory (pro­posed in jest) about the US elec­tions.

It is that Trump met with the Clin­tons be­fore he got into the race (as he, in fact, did) and for­mu­lated a plan to de­stroy the Repub­li­can Party. (Smile.) Se­ri­ously, why else would he be do­ing or say­ing all these things?

HARDCORE SUP­PORT

Funny, they did not think all these in­nu­en­dos and down­right lies would have cre­ated such a fol­low­ing, ac­tu­ally 30-35 per cent of hardcore sup­port.

This should have been seen as a pos­si­ble out­come as it is not rocket sci­ence, given the con­stituent make-up (and dumb­ness) of the Amer­i­can peo­ple.

With the vir­tual dis­in­te­gra­tion of the RNC, par­tic­u­larly over the last week­end, as il­lus­trated by the ‘war’ be­tween Trump and nu­mer­ous Repub­li­can big wigs, cul­mi­nat­ing in the lat­est bat­tle with House Speaker Paul Ryan, the prover­bial cup is vir­tu­ally empty.

While some 70 per cent of Repub­li­cans say they, in ef­fect, would vote for the worst Repub­li­can can­di­date rather than vote for Hil­lary, this is one of the low­est lev­els of sup­port for a Repub­li­can nom­i­nee.

The num­ber of his sup­port­ers may still go down be­cause of these new rev­e­la­tions, how­ever, and what re­mains are re­ally hard core, and, as a re­sult, the bot­tom will never truly fall out. In fact, don’t ex­pect his poll num­bers to de­cline by more than two to four points over the less than four weeks to elec­tion day.

Un­for­tu­nately for the Repub­li­can Party, these ad­di­tional two to four points will def­i­nitely put con­trol of the house in play, a seem­ingly im­pos­si­ble thought be­fore now.

The lat­est na­tional polls (up to Thurs­day, Oc­to­ber 13), as per Real Clear Pol­i­tics, all show Clin­ton with leads vary­ing from four per cent to 11 per cent, with the USC/LA Times poll, com­ing in as a tie, be­ing con­sid­ered an out­lier, es­pe­cially as that poll uses a dif­fer­ent method­ol­ogy.

REAL CLEAR POL­I­TICS

The Real Clear Pol­i­tics av­er­age of all these polls is now a size­able 6.2 per cent Clin­ton mar­gin. And it is wor­thy of note that these polls ap­pear to be trending up­wards to big­ger mar­gins for Hil­lary the closer one gets to the elec­tion.

With more and more women com­ing out of the wood­work to ac­cuse Trump of grop­ing/non­con­sen­sual kiss­ing (four at time of sub­mis­sion), it ap­pears that this time, es­pe­cially when early vot­ing is al­ready in progress in some states, the neg­a­tive ef­fects will stick.

As of the same morn­ing, the highly re­spected FiveThir­tyEight rates Clin­ton’s chances of win­ning a huge 86.9 per cent, while it rates the chances of a Trump vic­tory at 13.1 per cent.

Si­mul­ta­ne­ously, the Prince­ton Elec­tion Con­sor­tium had this at 94 per cent for Clin­ton and six per cent for Trump, and the Huff­in­g­ton Post cal­cu­lated the re­spec­tive chances at 90.7 per cent and 9.3 per cent.

The book­mak­ers, us­ing Paddy Power as an ex­am­ple, are of­fer­ing 1/6 for a Clin­ton win and 5/1 for a Trump vic­tory. These are the short­est and the long­est odds ever of­fered since the race started. And if you had bet on a win­ning horse at Cay­manas Park, pay­ing 1/6, don’t be sur­prised if all you got was your money back.

If, on elec­tion day, the vot­ing data shift fur­ther un­favourable against Trump by the two to four points afore­said, it could mean a land­slide, with Hil­lary win­ning more elec­toral votes than Obama, Bush, or Bill ever ac­com­plished (379EV-Bill1996).

What about the Se­nate? As of Oc­to­ber 13, FiveThir­tyEight has the prob­a­bil­ity of the Democrats gain­ing con­trol at 57.1 per cent, while the Prince­ton Elec­tion Con­sor­tium gives the DNC a 67 per cent shot. Re­mem­ber that the vice-pres­i­dent has a de­cid­ing vote to cast, and so with a Demo­cratic pres­i­dent, a 50/50 Se­nate ef­fec­tively means Demo­cratic con­trol.

Then what? With Trump push­ing the no­tion that the elec­tion (if he doesn’t win) is rigged and with an ap­pre­cia­ble num­ber of his staunch­est back­ers buy­ing into this, the post-elec­tion sce­nar­ios might be quite ugly.

Hil­lary will con­sider her days in the White House, as the first woman pres­i­dent, deal­ing with Rus­sia, China, ISIS, the deficit, etc, a cake­walk com­pared to deal­ing with first San­ders and then Trump! Chi­nese, and the real Dudus be­ing fat and black, the gate man be­gan to call me ‘Dudus’. When­ever he shouted ‘Dudus’, I would play­fully put my fin­ger over my lips in that pose in­di­cat­ing the univer­sal ‘keep quiet’, ‘shssss’, ‘hold it down’, ‘not so loud’, ‘don’t let any­body hear’.

This con­tin­ued through­out the search, so much so that pretty soon, all the gate at­ten­dants got to calling me ‘Dudus’.

Un­for­tu­nately, they still call me ‘Dudus’, to my cha­grin.

Fi­nally, I once had work­ing for me a ‘Birdie’, a ‘Bull’, a ‘Geese’, and a ‘Deer’. A busi­ness col­league of mine one day re­marked in­quis­i­tively, “Do you have any hu­mans work­ing there?” LoL.

I

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Jamaica

© PressReader. All rights reserved.