My Twitter account is just getting started. Follow me here

Where is this race, really? Trump is behind, but not by much. Here's why . . .

Here is the basic formula for proper analysis as I see it. Races where the incumbent has not solidified somewhere close to fifty percent often break late in the challenger's direction. As you can see in the formula, Trump has plenty of sources from which to draw to break through. MSM is trying to tell you that the race isn't close, but it is in the states. They are also telling you that unproven allegations from women are all that matter, but that isn't correct either. Google trends consistently shows Wikileaks, Hillary quid pro quo, Project Veritas, FBI related topics and other negative Clinton stories in the top twenty.

The state polls tell a different story than the national polls. Even if the national polls are accurate, and I am showing a five-point Hillary lead, none other than Nate Silver acknowledges Trump could win fairly easily without winning the national popular vote. Funny how he's dropped that point lately.

Further, Clinton has had every advantage and she is not solidified close to fifty percent in polling. Normally, this represents a tell tale sign of likely defeat, but fivethirtyeight.com explains that away. Their analysis, however, largely applies to early polling, so what about the fifty percent rule now? Perhaps they should revisit that question.

What polls should we pay attention to?

National polls that sharply diverge from bellwether state polls should be ignored. They are not reflecting what is going on where it really matters, the battleground states. The track record of battleground states, furthermore, in reflecting the actual national popular vote is likely a better indicator of where the national popular vote will actually fall. Why does the national media breathlessly report the most extreme national polls which pollsters know are the least accurate? It's hard to blame anything but media bias. Our nation elects presidents through fifty-one state elections and polls of those elections reflect a close race. It's certainly not an eleven or twelve point race.

The state polling tells a story of a fairly close race by historic standards, certainly a race that can go either way considering all of the new information we are likely to see between now and election day, most of which is bad for Hillary Clinton. It seems like the national media knows this and is trying to finish off Donald Trump so nobody bothers to ask if Hillary Clinton should be president. More on those state polls in a moment. First lets take a look at my national popular vote projection. It shows Trump behind by about five points.

National Polls Ref's Projection: Clinton +5.1% Clinton 45.9, Trump 40.8 How does my projection stack up when considering state polls? Very well. Even Nate Silver, who does tend to favor Democrats in his analysis, acknowledges that state polls overall seem to suggest a national lead of about seven points. He also acknowledges that yesterday's CNN polls are consistent with a national lead for Hillary of around three or four points. So I think the middle ground of five points looks about right. But of what use is national polling really? The truth, not much. Polling the nation is always less precise than polling a state. Why? There are 310,000,000 Americans and 51 Electoral Jurisdictions, so there is much greater opportunity for polling errors. 2012 Electoral College Map My projection is designed to limit the impact of outlier polls because of this imprecision. Unfortunately, polls with extreme results often get reported breathlessly by the media despite their detachment from reality, like the two polls to the right, which I have heard about constantly. Boo! Dishonest! EXTREME RESULTS Monmouth, 726 Likely Voters, 12-Point Clinton lead NBC/WSJ, 908 Likely Voters, 11-point lead for Clinton

How do we know these national polls are not very useful? The bellwether state polls have consistently reflected the national popular vote where it counts, in the actual vote. So shouldn't we look to the polls in those states to tell us where the nation is going? Consider Ohio and Florida. Ohio Ref's Projection: Clinton +0.9% Clinton 44.3, Trump 43.4 12,000,000 Ohioans, 1 Electoral Jurisdiction Ohio's population is only 3% that of the nation. It's also has fewer political dynamics to figure out, so it's easier to get an accurate number. Ohio has a long history of reflecting the national popular vote. See chart to the right. Perhaps we should look to the dead heat in Ohio and conclude that that national race is probably close as well. Ohio Dem Natl Dem Ohio GOP Natl GOP 2012 50.7 51.0 47.7 47.2 2008 51.5 52.9 46.9 45.7 2004 48.7 48.3 50.8 50.7 2000 46.5 47.4 50.0 47.9 1996 47.4 49.2 41.0 40.7 Florida Ref's Projection: Clinton +3.0% Clinton 45.9, Trump 42.9 20,000,000 Floridians, 1 Electoral Jurisdiction Florida's population is 6.4% of the nation's population. It has far fewer political dynamics to understand, so it's easier to poll than the nation at large. Florida has a long history of reflecting the national popular vote. See chart to the right. Perhaps we should look to the small lead Clinton has in Florida and understand that this is a close race. Florida Dem Natl Dem Florida GOP Natl GOP 2012 50.0 51.0 49.1 47.2 2008 51.0 52.9 48.2 45.7 2004 47.1 48.3 52.1 50.7 2000 48.8 47.4 48.8 47.9 1996 48.0 49.2 42.3 40.7

So what is the latest from the battleground states?

The Ref's projection of the battleground states is +2.6% Clinton. If Trump can move the numbers by 2.6% in the battleground states, the election would be a tossup. As of now, Clinton is in the lead and would likely win if the election were today. But it's not and he has plenty of material with which to break through the liberal media fog in this election. So let's take a closer look at the state polls.

UPI/CVoter: Nearly every battleground state within margin of error