BloggeRhythms

While the MSM still presents Trump as a long shot to win next Tuesday, poll results in Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania are all tied this morning.

Moving away from the polls to gain a different type of perspective, Tyler Durden @zerohedge.com, writes about stock market performance as an indicator, as follows:

“Here is why this is important: historically, the market performance in the three months leading up to a Presidential Election has displayed an uncanny ability to forecast who will win the White House… the incumbent party or the challenger. Since 1928, there have been 22 Presidential Elections. In 14 of them, the S&P 500 climbed during the three months preceding election day. The incumbent President or party won in 12 of those 14 instances. However, in 7 of the 8 elections where the S&P 500 fell over that three month period, the incumbent party lost. 

“There are only three exceptions to this correlation: 1956, 1968, and 1980. Statistically, the market has an 86.4% success rate in forecasting the election!"

Mr. Durden then proposes that "this relationship occurs because the stock market reflects the economic outlook in the weeks leading up to the election. A rising stock market indicates an improving economy, which means rising confidence and increases the chances of the incumbent party’s re-election. Therefore, your time might be better spent from August through October watching the stock market rather than the debates if you want to know who will be President for the next four years."

A chart shown in the article revealed that the S&P has fallen some 4.5% over the critical three month period. That slide suggests that Trump has a roughly 86% chance of winning the presidential election. “Alternatively, if only looking at the eight distinct cases in which the market declined in the 3 months heading into the election, there was just one occasion in which the pattern did not hold and the incumbent party was booted out on 7 of those occasions, boosting Trump's implied odds of success even higher, to 87.5%.”

At the same time Leon Sculti @heatst.com, provides some very strong evidence as to why news reporting is so often biased against Trump and any other Republicans.

“Recently, the Washington Post, Yahoo News, Time, the Columbia Journal Review and a host of other news organizations reported on a Center for Public Integrity study detailing the federal campaign-finance filings of journalists, reporters, news editors, television news anchors and other donors working in journalism. The study found that 96 percent of those contributions – or about $382,000 – went to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, while the remainder went to Donald Trump.

“Journalists’ disproportionately Democratic donations, revealed in The Center for Public Integrity’s study, reinforced the negative perceptions that a vast majority of American voters have of the news media – that they cannot be trusted, that they will work to elect the presidential candidate of their choice, and that Hillary Clinton is that candidate.’ 

The study concluded: “Conventional journalistic wisdom holds that reporters and editors are referees on politics’ playing field — bastions of neutrality who mustn’t root for Team Red or Team Blue, either in word or deed. But during this decidedly unconventional election season, during which “the media”has itself become a prominent storyline, several hundred news professionals have aligned themselves with Clinton or Trump by personally donating money to one or the other.” 

Confirming evidence of the study’s findings about ingrained bias in reportage can be found in an item illustrating why the MSM, also including elitists at Fox, will likely be totally shocked if Trump wins. 

Yesterday, anchorman Chris Wallace said: “This is most dispirited campaign I've ever covered.” 

“Lamenting that Trump has basically called Clinton a 'crook' and she has labeled 'The Donald' a 'creep,' 'Fox News Sunday' host tells 'On the Record' why he believes this presidential race is the most negative and 'issue-less' one of his career.”

Wallace’s lamentation makes one wonder where this vaunted talking head spends his time. Because, while Trump may wander off-script while campaigning, his supporters certainly grasp his message clearly. 

He’s for economic growth, full employment, career advancement, and continually hammering for enforcement of immigration laws, building a border wall and ending sanctuary cities while sending criminal aliens home. He also fully supports lower tax rates, national defense, repeal and revision of Obamacare, the right to keep and bear arms, ending the nuclear deal with Iran, destroying radical Islamic terrorist groups, strong law and order, affordable college education, timely veteran access to top-quality care through the VA or private Medicare providers, supporting coal jobs, safe fracking, energy from offshore and public lands, opening the Keystone Pipeline and curbing the massive power of the EPA. 

Thus, since Wallace seems totally unaware of what goes on around him, perhaps he too should be replaced. Along with all the other liberal leaning members of the media who talk and talk while grasping nothing that doesn’t fit their quite narrow minded agenda. 

And then, a friend sent this one:

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, this one from Chuck Ross @dailycaller.com, titled: “Hillary Deleted Email Showing She Forwarded Classified Information To Her Daughter"

According to the text: “Hillary Clinton deleted a 2009 email in which she forwarded classified information to her daughter, Chelsea. 

“The email was released on Friday by the State Department. It is one of thousands of documents recovered by the FBI from Clinton’s private email server.” 

Entitled “Update,” it “started with a message from Michael Froman, who served as a deputy assistant to President Obama and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.” 

The email, redacted “because it contains information classified as “Confidential,” was sent to Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s foreign policy adivser at the State Department, and several Obama aides. Sullivan sent it to Hillary Clinton who then forwarded it to Chelsea, who emailed under the pseudonym “Diane Reynolds.” 

“But perhaps the most significant part of the email is that Clinton forwarded classified information to her daughter, who is and was a private citizen with no government role and no apparent security clearances. 

“It is unclear when or why Clinton deleted the email. She gave the State Department around 30,000 emails she claimed were related to her State Department work. She deleted a similar number claiming they were personal and dealt with yoga routines, food recipes and Chelsea’s wedding. 

“FBI director James Comey said in July that investigators recovered several thousand work-related emails from Clinton’s server. The batch of emails released Friday are from that recovered trove”. 

So, evidence continues to mount that not only was classified information handled irregularly, a growing number of unauthorized readers gained access to the material. Including the likes of Anthony Weiner and the Clinton’s daughter. From there, who could possibly know where else it went? And if that isn’t a breach of national security, what is?   

Which means that with only three days left to go until the presidential election the ongoing question still needs asking again: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys are reading this?    

That's it for today folks.   

Adios