America’s Cycles of Change

How Donald Trump Earned His Victory

Mon, 21 November 2016

It all hinged on the big industrial states: Donald Trump realized this throughout his campaign: Hillary Clinton never did. He realized America was changing: She did not. He won: She lost.

Trump read the New Map of America correctly. Clinton never read it at all.

Trump fulfilled the predictions and model projections in my book Cycles of Change. He made control of immigration, land border security and protectionism, or economic border security the principle themes of his campaign. Just as I predicted in my 2015 book available on Amazon-Kindle and through this web site.

Trump showed strong support in the big Midwest industrial states during his own primary campaign.

Clinton never visited Wisconsin once and did small meetings more often than big ones on the few occasions she went to Michigan. Bernie Sanders repeatedly exposed her appalling weakness with white working class voters in the big industrial states.

The winning margins for Trump were in states he campaigned fiercely in – and while narrow they were far from uniform: They varied from one percent in Wisconsin and 1.2 percent in Pennsylvania to over19 percent in Missouri and Indiana.

Cross country polling showed that it was not so much Trump’s numbers that rose on John McCain’s in 2008 and Mitt Romney’s as Clinton’s that collapsed among Millennial voters who had loved Bernie Sanders but refused.

Clinton contrived to win well over a million votes more than Trump, piling up her numbers in lop-sided victories in the liberal strongholds of New York State, California and Washington State. Yet she still fell more than six million votes short of Barack Obama’s still record-breaking tally in 2008.

Exit polls consistently suggested Trump did far better among Hispanic voters, male and female than Romney and McCain had done – and that is no wonder since he devoted large proportions of every speech he gave since the July convention to wooing them and explaining how his policies would better benefit them than Clinton’s policies.

Clinton did no such thing. I was listening to all Clinton and Trump’s speeches on a daily basis throughout the more than three months of the post-convention campaign and documented this.

Attendance for Trump was consistently enormous at his repeated speeches in rallies focused on the key battleground states. The size of the crowds and the passion of his support rose remarkably during the last week of the campaign. Clinton did not even try to replicate it.

The conclusions from this data are clear: Trump’s strategy of speaking repeatedly at massive rallies across the country and focusing his effort on key major industrial battleground states paid off handsomely.

It proved decisive. It negated Clinton’s advantage in the popular vote piled up on the East and West coasts. Clinton was rejected by most of the Heartland.

Not only were the opinion polls wildly wrong at the end of the day: The supposedly sophisticated theoretical models on which the Clinton campaign based their strategy proved to be ludicrous wrong. They constructed castles in the air and the castles came crashing down.