The popular vote total situation

In 2020, Let's Go Brandon purportedly got 81,282,916 votes to Trump's 74,223,369 votes. That's a vote total of 155,506,285 votes.

In 2024, we currently see the following:

There's only a difference of a little over a million votes from 2020.  Either Let's Go Brandon truly did earn a record vote volume and it was erased by Trump in 2024, or, there were 26 million more votes in 2020 than there were in 2016 (~128 million for Trump and Clinton combined):

And if the latter is true, Let's Go Brandon got 11.7 million more votes than did Obama (69.4 million) at his most popular in 2008 when there were 129.4 million votes for the two major candidates. 

Notice in 2016 and 2008 the totals were awfully close? Yet the vote total sudden leapt up 26 million votes. That's absurd unless there was cheating or duplicate votes being counted. 

And if that absurdity holds true for 2024, Trump, whose vote totals went from 62.9 million in 2016, to 74.2 million in 2020 to 77 million in 2024, actually blew out Kamala Harris by a lot more than 3 million votes and cheating still occurred in crazy numbers. If we extrapolate out the vote total growth from 2008 to 2016, an extra 1.4 million, then 2024 should expect a total of 130.8 million. If Trumps' total was 77 million that would leave just 53 million votes for Harris. 

The thing is that so many people went and voted for Trump that they swamped the cheat. It would explain the push polls saying Harris was going to win Iowa for example.  It would explain why the Harris campaign thought they were going to 'win'.  It would explain a lot actually.

But that's just conspiracy theory stuff. Right?

Maybe it's just that the extra 26 million votes appeared due to illegal immigrants.  That would explain why the 2024 vote totals were similar to the 2020 vote totals. 26 million illegal immigrants is nothing to sneeze at. Of course that's also conspiracy theory stuff, right?

Fine.  It's all just conspiracy theory and Trump did just retake the White House. Fine.  I'm skeptical about the 2020 and 2024 vote totals, but I'll still take it.  Nevertheless, to me it just speaks to creating better controls for open and fair voting.  Federal rules. At a Constitutional level. Because something about the 2020 election, and even the Harris total in 2024, still seems off.

Obama's CIA coup d'etat attempt coming to light

Um, scary:

Megyn Kelly talks with president Trump

This is quite a different conversation than they would have had (or refused to have) in 2016. 

Don't fall for the anecdotal

In 2016, Donald Trump won the presidency, somewhat handily, despite the deep state collusion against him.  I was skeptical because of polling, despite the anecdotal evidence that he was drawing huge crowds, and people were responding enthusiastically.  Polling was predominantly not on his side.  I figured it was going to be a close election, not a Hillary Clinton blowout. I thought either candidate could win but it would be close.  The anecdotal evidence of crowds and the enthusiasm gap proved to be correct.

With the same situation in 2020 with president Trump drawing large crowds and Let's Go Brandon sequestered in a basement somewhere or talking to a dozen or so cars it was tempting to fall for a president Trump blowout win.  I did.  So did many other pundits.  The anecdotal evidence was clearly incorrect that time around.  

As conservatives it seems like we are relying on the anecdotal again, heading into 2024.  While I want this to be true as much as the next MAGA Republican supporter, we can't fall for it being the narrative, and certainly not rely on it.  We are no longer in 2016 and we have seen the lengths the left and the deep state are willing to go to prevent his winning again.  We cannot fight the battle 2016 style. It won't work.

As heartening as it is to see that, it's not a strategy.

Well, well, well....

 Hillary Clinton gets a slap on the wrist.

Why is this not front page news everywhere?

Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every city except for 4 in key swing states.  Yet he got 13 million more votes than she did in 2016? That's a remarkable and implausible coincidence and the math just doesn't make sense.

My predictions have been wrong all along (slightly)

Two days ago I pointed out that if the polls in 2020 had 85% of the same October bias as did the polls in October 2016, Trump was leading Biden at 247 to 243 electoral college votes with 48 electoral college undecided. Today, with the same bias level,  and giving Virginia, New Mexico and all of Maine to Biden, Trump is leading Biden 264 to 260 with only New Hampshire and Minnesota remaining undecided.  

If Trump  gets Maine District 2 and wins New Hampshire, he actually gets to 269 - the dreaded tie scenario if Biden were to win Minnesota.  However I took a closer look at North Carolina which I was seeing as perilously close.  If Trump were to win that he would actually have enough electoral college votes to win the election even without New Hampshire and Main District 2.

It got me thinking - I'm applying both my own view of the 2016 bias as well as the 538 pollster bias. I could be double counting the bias.  But thanks to a video (I cannot relocate the exact one) from Red Eagle Politics (a great YouTube channel worth checking out), I decided to take a closer look at the 538 pollster bias ratings. As was pointed out on the video I saw, the pollster ratings provided by 538 are kind of suspect. The New York Times/Siena polls are rated as a +0.7% bias towards - Republicans??? 

Looking Just at North Carolina polls in October 2016, they had Clinton +2 (late September) and Clinton +8 (late October).  In their poll of the last three days before the election they rated it a 44-44 tie, with a margin of error +/-3.5% (their CYA poll).  In North Carolina in 2016 Trump won 49.8 to 46.2.  That represents a victory of 3.6%, actually just outside their margin of error. And in fact, they underrepresented the Trump support by 5.8% and Clinton by 2.2%.  Clearly (1) they got it wrong by even their own Margin of Error on 1 of the 2 data points as well as the overall result, and (2) how the hell are they rated Republican +0.7%? What is that rating based on? Perhaps congressional polling results? It doesn't matter, their bias factor clearly cannot be  attributable to upcoming election at a presidential level. That's just one example, and I found others.

The takeaway - The 538 pollster bias is sketchy at best, and I am backing it out of my calculations.

Stay tuned for a revised update of my polling-adjusted view of the electoral college situation later today. That's not to say all of the 538 data is bunk.  The do provide a pollster grade rating that is, for the most part, reasonable - especially when it comes to lesser known pollsters.  I will still be filtering out those pollsters that they have rated below a C+.  That may be a generous inclusion of me when it comes to certain pollsters, but I do still have other means of filtering out garbage polls (old polls, Margin of error issues, sample sizes to small for example) and those will remain intact. 

I expect my look later today will be more accurate than what I have been showing and I expect it to break slightly more in Trump's favor.

Predicting the presidential race comes down to belief

The 2020 election comes down belief. I'm not taking just who believes in their candidate.  I'm talking about predicting who is going to win depends on what and who you believe.  The pols seem wonky and over-dramatically pro-Biden. But that's what I believe. I believe that man cannot generate enthusiasm.  Then again, you might believe there's a rabid anti-Trump enthusiasm that overshadows Biden himself.

Maybe there's a revenge factor for Democrats who really, really wanted Hillary Clinton to  win.  Conversely Trump supporters have a reason for revenge of their own - 4 years of phony impeachment to oust a duly elected president.

Now election  prediction - that's a different sort of beliefs, going back to what you believe about the polls.  In 2016 they were wrong. Badly wrong.  Oh, granted in the final days they got close. But that was right at the end.  I pointed this out yesterday.  The real question is: "Is the same thing happening again in 2020"? It's hard to believe that the Democrats chose a candidate that is even more lackluster than Hillary Clinton was, but they actually did it. So yes, I believe that the polling is again in 2020 either erroneous or deliberately misleading.  How much so?

That's the real question. I'm seeing some truly dramatic election impacts if the reasonable and recent polls (margin of error less than 4.3%, done in the last 13 days and by reasonably reputable pollster) are scaled to the same level of bias (or less) compared to how off they were in 2016.

For example, if the polls are only 80% as biased towards Biden as the were to Hillary. Biden has almost won.  In this scenario he probably gets all of the states that cannot be called based on polling, except maybe Iowa and ends up 305 electoral college votes - a solid win.  However, in order to ensure that he wins the level of bias would have to drop all the way to 45% where Biden would also capture Florida.

But if the bias is 85% of the Clinton bias, Trump is actually leading right now.  And interestingly, Pennsylvania is the first state to flip from Biden to Trump's column.

At 90% of the Clinton bias in polls applied to 2020, North Carolina flips from Biden to Trump as well, but he still has not won.

At a bias level in late October 2020 matching that of October 2016, Michigan flips and Trump wins.

If there is zero bias in the polls Biden has 308 electoral votes and likely garners most of the 48 undecided states. His potential ceiling is 356 electoral college votes.  That shows this is definitely a matter of belief.  After all the bias could be even worse this time around. Biden is less energizing than Hillary Clinton was, right?  If the bias is 125% of what Hillary got in October 2016, Trump get 288 electoral votes comfortably and at possibly 28 of the undecided 48 undecided states (where the polling is just not sufficient to make a plausible call), for a total of 316 electoral college votes.

What do you believe? The polls are right, or close, or wrong?  That's what leads to an inability to make a reasonable prediction right now and we are less than a week away.

For the record, I see no evidence that the pollsters recognized and adjusted their methodologies from 2016. As a result, I believe Trump is going to win (minus any cheating). I just don't know how soundly he is going to win. My hope is that it's enough to overcome any potential "insurance policies" on the part of the left.

***How the polls understated Trump in 2016, and what it means for 2020***

Looking back at the 2016 Trump vs. Clinton election, There was some interesting shy Trump voter effect.  I'm not worried about the actual results in 2020 if this time the polling misses the same voters it did in 2016. Trump's support was often understated.* Below are some of the key states showing how the polls got it wrong leading up to the 2016 election by month.  Interestingly, the polls in 2016 often understated* Clinton support, albeit typically by a smaller percentage.  That all could be from the impact of third party votes switching late, or cheating.  But the polls having Biden +15 are likely experiencing the same mistakes they did last time.

*Note, where the number is negative, it indicates the polls have overstated the candidate's support in that month. Where both candidates' numbers equal exactly zero, it indicates there was no polling in that time frame.

In Florida: Trump highly over-performed his polling right into November. Hillary Clinton in October polls was actually doing worse than her polling, though by November the polls were back to understating her actual results.

In Georgia: Polling generally improved month over month for both candidates, but Trump was hurt more by being understated throughout the late polling cycle.

In Iowa: The polls massively underestimated Trump but were fairly close on Clinton.

In Michigan: The story is similar to Iowa, in October short-selling his support by almost 8% while overselling Hillary's by 1%!

In Minnesota: In October the total error of support for Clinton and Trump was 8%!

In North Carolina: The polls were off by a combined support error of 4.6% in October and even more in November.

In New Hampshire: There was an interesting reversal of error in November but in October the effect was a +8 shift towards Hillary.

In Ohio: Trump was again slighted. You get the idea and pattern forming among all the states here, right?

In Pennsylvania: Much the same as other states, the Trump shy voters are not getting picked up just like elsewhere.  Unless, just like elsewhere, the differential that largely evaporates in November was fictitious to begin with.  Did the pollsters suddenly figure out how to spot shy Trump voters in November 2016? Or did they not want to be labelled as untrustworthy, and had to start reflecting the truth? The former is more likely true because there are pollsters who largely got it right in 2016 (Trafalgar) that are showing a tighter race than other pollsters who are still showing large Biden leads today. Remember, these graphs are the pollsters in the aggregate by month, not differentiating between correct and incorrect pollsters. A lot (if not most) of the same players are showing the same type of results this time around - both the Trafalgars and the Ipsoses of the polling universe.

In Texas: Here's one they hurt Hillary, dramatically (as well as Trump).  But most notably in every month but October.  October is THE month this time around, since there are only 2 days worth of potential polling in November, and more realistically, just 1 day.

In Virginia: The bias probably doesn't matter because Biden is obscenely ahead in the state.  However, it raises the question - are the polls (either deliberately or through error) overstating the Biden lead even more strongly that they did for Hillary Clinton?  Or is Biden actually really that far ahead?  If he is, the contest is over. But if not, what is the ratio of Hillary oversampled voters in 2016 to Biden oversampled voters in 2020?  I have in all of my assessments so far assumed it's 1-1.  Interestingly in my analyses so far, if the Biden bias is only 85% of Clinton's, he still wins the election. At 90% it's not decided yet and at 95% or more, Trump wins.

Finally in Wisconsin: The error was clear.  In November they finally got Clinton support right, but there was still a massive undercounting of Trump support.

So what's it all mean? It means GO VOTE. For Trump.  Nothing matters - not the polls, not the early voting split, nothing matters except the final tally.  I have statistical knowledge and I'm saying the polls don't matter as much as you are being told.  If all the polls were done properly, they might.  But there's a lot of bias at work, both political and technical.  We won't understand it until after the election, and then and only then, is there a chance for pollsters to start correcting their mistakes of 2016 and 2020 (if the latter are still suffering from the same  issues as the former). But that's not the election.  The election is you turning out and making a difference.

More misleading evidence of Biden's electoral prowess

There's a poll out today in Michigan from MIRS/Mitchell Research that shows an uptick in Joe Biden's lead:

Biden +10?  Is it time to panic maybe?

Nope.  Back in 2016 the same pollster in the same window polled the following:

How did the state voting turn out? President Trump got 47.5% of the vote and Hillary Clinton got 47.3%. In other words they overstated Clinton's vote by 5.5% and understated president Trump's vote by 6.5%.  They were off by 12% total. And they had Clinton +12. If the same is the case in 2020, then we would expect to see the poll corrected to  Biden at 45.5% and Trump at 47.5%. That's a Trump win and improvement for Trump overall vs. his 2016 showing. 

When I look at valid polls in Michigan, and account for this bias (assuming it has not been corrected since 2016) I see Trump as high as +4.4% over three different valid polls.  While I do not believe it will be that high of a lead, I see him winning Michigan.

A few graphs that show a lot

 Back in 2016 the polls in the swing states tightened a lot in the swing states in the last couple of weeks.  The pollsters were predicting a Hillary rout of now president Trump.  But as election day neared they had to become more realistic or the pollsters risked their credibility.

Look what's happening in a few key swing states according the the RealClearPolitics averages (which are problematic in their own right) this time around and draw your own conclusions:

 

Friday Musical Interlude - one for the Democrat voters

 STRFKR's Open Your Eyes from 2016:

A simplified election view and an explainer of why Trump is actually winning

 Based on the latest RealClearPolitics summary of polls, without looking at the partisan split and simply removing the partisan bias per FiveThirtyEight as well as the time-specific bias in polls by state that was evident in 2016 versus the actual results, I get some interesting results.

When I say time-specific bias, I think I owe an example. In Florida in 2016, in October, the RCP polls had Clinton at 48.2% and Trump at 42.4% support. The actual election had Trump garner 49% and Clinton at 47.8%.  So Clinton support was overstated in October in the polls by only 0.4%, but at the same time, president Trump got 6.6% more of the total vote than polls projected.  Combined, the pro-Clinton effect of Florida polls in October was the Clinton 'victory' margin was overstated by 7%.

It's true that the polls were not as far off in 2016 by the time November rolled around, but prior to that, they were either very wrong, deliberately very misleading or else something big changed in the last week to sway a massive shift in voter preference. I don't think the latter scenario was the case, even though Comey re-opened the Hillary Clinton email investigation in late October.  Why do I think that?  Because in a good number of the swing states the Hillary bias did not disappear in November polls.

What's more likely is that the polls were being used to push a narrative and that as election day closed in, they had to become more accurate or be viewed as untrustworthy in the future.  The bias often persisted right up to the election in 2016, but it was more muted than it was in November. 

Polls today have Biden outperforming Hillary's 2016 polls versus Donald Trump. Is that a concern?  Definitely - remember that Hillary Clinton had almost as high unfavorables in polls as  did Donald Trump.  Biden is, inexplicably, more likeable than Hillary Clinton to many.  That's why he's in hiding and not wanting to debate Trump again (ignore the lies that it is about Trump having COVID-19).

But it's possible the polls are biased towards Biden as much or more (or less) than they were  towards Hillary Clinton.  The bias is not easy to gauge.  Maybe by 2024 I'll be able to do that.  For now, I'm going to assume that the bias is the same for Biden as it was for Clinton.

With all that said - here's what my electoral college map looks like, removing the polling bias (or mistake):

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Another look - why the polls don't scare me

Intuitively everyone on the right understands that Clinton was crushing president Trump in the polls in 2016 and still lost.  I've been looking at the polls in 2016 by month. After filtering for likely voter polls in the RealClearPolitics polls for September 2016, and comparing those results to the final outcome of the presidential election there is a consistent bias in the results towards Clinton.  Looking state by state you can see the bias in the polling leaning heavily towards Hillary Clinton:

As you can see there were 13 states in September that exhibited a polling bias towards Clinton, two that exhibited no bias and two that exhibited a bias, or error, towards president Trump. Some of the bias was pretty dramatic at this point in the race.

Some of these states had the bias tighten later in the race.  Some did not.  The point is the polls now are either biased or inaccurate compared to what they will like like the day before the election.  One counter-argument could be that the voters' choices changed during that time as well.  Fair enough - there was all of that James Comey garbage of the email investigation back and forth going on.

But if you look back at this point in the race there was a media exuberance that Clinton was going to win 350+ electoral college votes.  Remember this?

Isn't that fun to watch in retrospect?

Even if the pollsters have made adjustments and accounted for 75% of those biases (which is a stretch since there is little evidence that is the case), there's still a swing of a couple of points towards president Trump and that impacts his chances of re-election pretty significantly.

FiveThirtyEight has rated various pollsters as having a bias towards Democrats or Republicans or neither, but that is a more generic bias and understates the bias I have found.  It's possible both biases apply.  Most of the FiveThirtyEight polls seem to have benefited Democrats.  While there is potentially some overlap between their identified biases and my 2016 pollster biases, the overall impact is to Trump's benefit and potentially more than my cautious view of granting pollsters a 75% correction this time around.  The polls don't scare me.

Top 10 things you don't hear about the 2016 election

The Top 10 things you don't hear about the 2016 election:

10. Republican congressional candidates got a higher percentage of the popular vote than Democratic candidates in 2016 (in total - 63,422,020 votes R to 62,315,293 votes D)

9.  Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump in the 2016 election popular vote by 2.8 million votes.  If you removed California, Donald Trump won the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes. Hillary Clinton in other words, beat president Trump by 4.2 million votes in California, a state with little Republican presence, ensuring Democrats will always run up the vote tally there.

8. If Donald Trump had gotten all the votes that were cast for Libertarian Gary Johnson and conservative independent Evan McMullin, and Hillary Clinton had gotten the votes for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Donald Trump would have beaten Hillary Clinton in the popular vote 68.2 million to 67.3 million.

7. Democrats did not get more than 50% of the popular vote in Colorado (the only years in recent history that they did were Obama's 2 terms), Georgia (1992 was the last time), Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina (even Obama did not beat 50% there) or Virginia.  While some of this may have been due to Hillary Clinton's unlikeability, there also seems to be a ceiling for Democrats in some of these states.

6. Despite two supposedly very unpopular candidates, there were only 4 states where the presidential vote was less than that of the house or senate vote in that state - Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana and Montana.

5. In California, 100% of the votes cast for senate in 2016 were for Democratic candidates.

4. In Senate race votes in 2016, In 12 Democratic (blue) states, Democrats won the popular vote 61.4% to 33.5%. In 16 Republican (red) states, Republicans won the popular vote 60.3% to 33.1%, almost identical ratios.

3. In Senate race votes in 2016 in 10 battleground (toss-up/purple) states, Republicans won the popular vote 50.1% to 45.8%.

2. 10 million more votes were cast for Democratic senate candidates than Republican candidates but in California there were ZERO votes cast for Republicans and yet 12.2 million votes cast for the senate race. Honestly California - why vote if it's only going to be for one party?

1. President Trump won.

Here's why THEY are wrong

Previously, I explained why I didn't believe my own filtering of the REalClearPolitics (RCP) average of polls and why I am inclined to think president Trump will win, despite the polling evidence.  It's a stretch for me, I know.  I'm an evidence guy.  I'm a data guy.  Yet I don't agree with the evidence I've collected. So in the spirit of self-checking and to dispel any sort of confirmation bias on my part, I thought I'd run an experiment of sorts.  Or rather just do some checking.  I took a look at the RCP polls for 2016 Trump vs. Clinton and compare it to 2020 Trump vs. Biden.  I specifically drilled down on Pennsylvania as a battleground state.  More specifically, I looked at the polls and compared August vs August.  Here's what I found.

The results are remarkably similar in both election years.  Consider - Trump did not lead in either state in either year, in any poll.  But in 2016 Trump defeated  Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania.  Famously so.  If you compare the 6 polls from 2016 to the 6 from 2018, Clinton was ahead of Trump by a combined +42.  Biden is ahead by +33. If you remove the meaningless Registered Voter (RV) polls, Clinton was ahead by +31, Biden only by +26.  In other words, Biden is under-performing Hillary Clinton at the same time period (August) in the election cycle.

Some might argue that pollsters have gotten smarter and are polling better than in 2016.  Show me proof after the election.  Right now there is no evidence to support that claim.  

In fact, when you look at individual pollsters who polled both 2016 and 2018, CBS News/YouGov has Clinton +8, Biden +6.  He's under-performed. Franklin and Marshall had both Clinton and Biden +7.  They've even got a lower margin of error in 2020, so Biden is doing better right?  No, because in 2020 they polled Registered Voters instead of Likely Voters like they did in 2016. Why is that?  Registered Voters always favor Democrats versus Likely Voter polls, and they are always less accurate.  The only pollster in 2020 that has good news for Biden is Emerson.  Emerson has Biden +9 and it only had Clinton +3.  Interestingly in this case, Emerson showed the lowest spread of Clinton over Trump and shows the largest spread of Biden over Trump.  Is it a perennial outlier or the one pollster we can say is an apples-to-apples comparison?  There's no evidence it's the latter without investigating the cross tabs (which I have not yet done).

Evidence, though only circumstantial, would indicate that the pollsters showing a Clinton lead and a Biden lead could be suffering from the same innate bias.  Trump beat Clinton despite the polls (in August anyway), and the same is quite potentially true in 2020.  And Biden is under-performing Clinton at the same point in the race.  The directional indication thus is Trump beat Clinton in Pennsylvania, despite trailing in August.  He trails Biden by less than he trailed Clinton in August.  Therefore it's possible he will defeat Biden by more than he defeated Clinton in Pennsylvania.  That's not an impossible trail of breadcrumbs to follow. 

Now time for the glass half empty view.  In the polls the gap between Trump and Clinton appear to be due to her own ceiling.  Remember, she was not a likable candidate.  Biden, while oafish, is more likable than Hillary was.  Trump's numbers have come up vs. 2016 but Biden has a higher polling average than Hillary did.  It seems he has a higher top end.  The Emerson poll is an interesting example.  Trump scored a 43% in both 2016 and 2020 but whereas Clinton got 46% in the pol, Biden got 52% support.

I eye that even with suspicion.  It is possible that a pollster could (NOT would) hold an option static and then smooth out the results based on that.  In other words, they could have held Trump at 43% and then took the remainder of voters and got fewer not sure/uncommitted and more Biden support.  I don't think they did that.  It's more plausible that Biden is more likable than Hillary was.  That does not translate to more votes in November though.

I'll leave it with one last thought.  The final RCP average in 2016 had Clinton +2.1%, Trump won by 0.7%.  The only two polls that had Trump competitive in the final days of early November were Trafalgar Group (Trump +1) and Harper (Tie).  Most of the pollsters (excluding the RV polls) had Clinton +2.  Morning Call had Clinton +6.  Monmouth had Clinton +4.  Not included in the RCP average but still final week polls, were CNN (Clinton +5), Quinnipiac (Clinton +6) and Franklin and Marshall (Clinton +11).  Remember: The only poll that matters is election day (plus all the monitored mail in voting but that's a story for another day).

Dinesh D'Souza on why president Trump won, and can win again

This is an interesting take on president Trump's victory in 20016 (and 2020) with a health side implication of politics versus economics.  

Here's a Good Question

How is it that the Russians supposedly knew to focus on Wisconsin in the 2016 election and the Hillary Clinton campaign didn't?   Watch John Podesta get asked that question on Face The Nation, and get flumoxed.

He has an answer as part of the broader context; "Russia mattered".  What mattered more is that the Hillary campaign was moribund, ill-managed and clueless.  In the Mueller indictment they also indicate that there was no impact on the election that resulted from these activities.

Podesta pointed out that the this focused only on the social media aspect of Russian interference (which incidentally after the election was directed full force at president Trump).  That's an interesting take given that if there was something much more palpable, like collusion, it would have come first, or at a minimum been mentioned as a pending part of the investigation. So, nope.

The liberal/media/liberal-media narrative has fallen apart.  They are scrambling to find another reason to discredit the Trump presidency.

One year after the Trump election

A look back at the pundits who said Trump could not win.

Saturday Learning Series - China running into economic headwinds?

Is China finally hitting the headwinds that many have predicted?  Possibly, just as an Al Jazeera documentary postulated last year.