BloggeRhythms

Today’s another where the best indications of the presidential election’s outcome can be found outside the headline story’s in the MSM.

To begin, Trump once gain has gained substantially in the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times "Daybreak" poll where he leads his opponent 47.8% to 42.4%. A 5.4% gap in his favor.

He’s also pulled even again in the quite reliable IBD/TIPP Tracking poll where both contenders tie at 44%.

However, aside from the polls, which are frequently flawed for many reasons, several other factors are moving in his favor that have serious affect on vast numbers of voters. 

According to Reuters: “U.S. private employers added 147,000 jobs in October, below economists' expectations, a report by a payrolls processor showed on Wednesday.

“Economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast the ADP National Employment Report would show a gain of 165,000 jobs, with estimates ranging from 130,000 to 190,000. 

“The ADP figures come ahead of the U.S. Labor Department's more comprehensive non-farm payrolls report on Friday, which includes both public and private-sector employment.” 

Whereas “economists polled by Reuters are looking for U.S. private payroll employment to have grown by 166,000 jobs in October, down from 167,000 the month before,” that means the trend in employment is downward, another plus for Trump and his growth program. 

In another, subtler, indication of problems for Trump’s opponent, Reuters via dailymail.co.uk, reports that: “The New York Times Co. reported a 95.7 fall in quarterly profit, hit by restructuring charges related to headcount reductions.

“Net profit attributable to the newspaper publisher fell to $406,000, or break-even per share, in the third quarter, from $9.4 million, or 6 cents per share, a year earlier. 

“Revenue fell to $363.6 million from $367.4 million.” 

Consequently, here we have an indication that the Times is laying off unneeded personnel which can only result from a loss of readership. And that means far fewer readers have interest in reading leftist propaganda. Another plus for Trump. 

Adding fuel to Trump’s fire, Rebecca Spalding @bloomberg.com, writes: “Few institutions have a better track record calling presidential races than the U.S. stock market. At the moment, it’s sending information that counts against Democrat Hillary Clinton. 

“The performance of the S&P 500 Index has signaled the outcome of every presidential election since 1984, according to an analysis by Strategas Research Partners LLC. A gain in the benchmark for American equity in the three months prior to the vote has seen the incumbent party win 86 percent of the time since 1928. Right now, the benchmark gauge is down 3.6 percent since Aug. 8 with just a week until the vote, a fact that in isolation augurs well for Donald Trump. 

“Aside from the three-month interval, the S&P 500 fell Tuesday by the most in three weeks, slipping for a sixth day to 2,111.72, making its first foray below 2,100 since July 7 before rebounding. The gauge is in its longest slide since August 2015 amid polls showing the race for the White House is tightening. The CBOE Volatility Index surged Tuesday by 9 percent to the highest since June 27.” 

Added to that is input from John Merline @investors.com, which proposes that: “Weeks of wall-to-wall media coverage of Donald Trump's crude language and alleged misdeeds involving women don't seem to have hurt his standing among female voters, the IBD/TIPP presidential tracking poll shows. 

“Trump's support among women has improved 5 points in the past three days in the wake of the FBI's stunning announcement that it is looking into a fresh batch of emails relating to Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state. 

“As of Tuesday, 39% of women said they're backing Trump, compared with 34% who supported Trump in Saturday's tracking poll. 

“And as a result, the thrice-married, acid-tongued Trump is doing just as well among women as squeaky-clean Mitt Romney was doing at this point in the Oct. 28, 2012, IBD/TIPP tracking poll, when Romney also got 39% of the female vote. (Hurricane Sandy interrupted daily updates to the tracking poll after that date.)” 

Polls being what they are, other more reliable indicators also appear to be favoring Trump, such as a headline from cbsnews.com, that reads: “With insurers pulling out of markets, some Obamacare users "really nervous"  

 

According to the text: “Open enrollment for Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, begins today. 

“Problems with the law mean consumers could face significant rate hikes in some parts of the country. There will also be fewer health plans to choose from.

“Starting today, the administration will make a major enrollment push -- but that may be a tough sell in states like Tennessee, which has seen premiums spike more than 50 percent, reports CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan.”

Since that same condition exists in states all across the nation, Trump’s pledge to repeal and replace the failing program with a competitive healthcare marketplace is another major boost for him. 

And then, another non-scientific but likely valid indicator of voter sentiment comes from a minnesota.cbslocal.com article titled: “Trump Edges Out Clinton In High School Mock Vote”

“Republican candidate Donald Trump has won the first round of Minnesota’s mock election for high school students, narrowly beating out Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. 

“Secretary of State Steve Simon announced Tuesday the results of the Minnesota Students Vote 2016, which showed the flamboyant businessman taking 34.97 percent of the vote. Clinton was close behind, with 32.89 percent. 

“More than 77,000 students from 213 high schools participated in the first round of the mock election, Simon said. More schools are slated to hold mock elections in the coming days before the Nov. 8 general election.” 

Interestingly, the vote breakdown mirrored the demographics of most recent presidential elections wherein city dwellers and suburbia show significantly different results, as follows: “Maps of student voting statistics show that, in general, Trump won out in greater Minnesota while Clinton took the Twin Cities, St. Cloud and Duluth.” 

Reader Daniel Leffel offered additional, perfectly logical rationale with his comment: “Big indicator that things are moving Trump’s way. Kids vote the way their parents are voting.” 

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, containing two items, both from FoxNews.com. 

First; “Only days before the presidential election, the FBI released an archive of documents from a long-closed investigation into Bill Clinton's 2001 presidential pardon of a fugitive financier, prompting questions from Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign about its timing. 

“The 129 pages of heavily censored material about Bill Clinton's presidential pardon of Marc Rich were published Monday on the FBI's Freedom of Information Act webpage and noted by one of the bureau's Twitter accounts Tuesday. 

“The newly released FBI documents are from a 2001 federal investigation into Bill Clinton's pardon at the end of his administration of Marc Rich, who was indicted in 1983 and evaded prosecution in Switzerland. Rich died in 2013. 

“The files briefly cited the Clinton Foundation in connection with a large donation in support of Clinton's presidential library. The FBI documents cited public records showing that an unidentified person donated to "the William J. Clinton Foundation, a foundation that supports the Clinton presidential library." 

“Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, pledged a $450,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation's project to develop and build the presidential facility. The new FBI archive does not name Denise Rich, but FBI agents sought to talk to her as part of the probe into her former husband's pardon. 

“Despite the extensive redactions, the FBI archive cites evidence being prepared for a federal grand jury, agents' reports and internal memos. Agents appeared to be interested in a New York dinner in which the Rich pardon may have been discussed.”

While this matter dates back to 2001, which is why Bill’s wife’s campaign questioned the bureau's decision to make the file public so close to Tuesday's election: “Earlier in October, the FBI unit published historical files as far back as 1966 about Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump.” Meaning that once again, complaints from Bill’s wife’s campaign have no basis in practical reality. 

On the second subject: “Fox News Contributor Charles Hurt told “Special Report with Bret Baier” viewers Monday that the election stakes are high for the Federal Bureau of Investigation following the announcement of a new Hillary Clinton email probe.  

“If, in fact, this goes forward and Hillary Clinton loses the election, and turns out there’s nothing but yoga emails on the server or completely irrelevant, harmless emails, it’s gonna be devastating for the FBI,” said Hurt. 

Which indicates that it’s highly probable that the the FBI certainly knows what to expect from its new email investigation. Because, after the fiasco caused by its mishandling of the first email go-round, it’s inconceivable they’d put their bureau's reputation at risk again on the very same subject. 

And that certainly doesn’t bode well for Huma Abedin or her boss. Particularly because Anthony Weiner will almost undoubtedly toss both of them under the bus having turned “state’s evidence” to save his own tail from major prosecution. 

Bringing up the ongoing question once more, even though only six days remain until the election: 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