I still maintain that a Donald Trump victory is inevitable, and even that his level of support should be sufficient to "trump" the Democrats' last minute cheating and other shenanigans. It will be sufficient to shock the world. I will explain why, but everyone will have to try to extricate their minds from the prevailing media narrative of the past few days and look at the "big picture." Almost every predeterminative cyclical electoral trend that prognosticators tend to favor point to a Trump victory. Not only that, but Trump has the most important electoral demographics locked down except one. You may be thinking "white women" but that's basically split. I'm referring to Hispanics, and that's because the Dem machine is really working them to attempt to produce an unprecedented level of turnout. Aside from that, we really don't have a good grasp of "how many" there really are out there. This election will be very telling for that reason; it will likely shock the average white person in terms of how far we have fallen in demographic terms, and how quickly it has happened. It will resemble the collective shock produced from the 2010 census results. In any case, there are also several palpable recurring trends that we can gleam from the past few election cycles, and all of these favor Trump as well. These "constants" are not really accounted for in mainstream polling. Consider: 1) Trump has the sort of electric ground-swelling populist enthusiasm that produces unprecedented levels of voter turnout. This has been an important factor in several elections over the past ten years. We saw it in the 2008 Democratic primary election which was another election wherein Hillary was initially "inevitable" and yet suffered an upset to Obama because of the unprecedented level of turnout in several usually neglected voter demographics. We saw it in the 2010 mid-terms with the 'Tea Party' phenomenon. We got a little piece of it in 2012 on the Republican primary side with Ron Paul's candidacy - in the 80's or 90's, that would have been a 2% campaign all the way through. Then we saw it again in both party primaries this cycle. Bernie Sanders, a far left socialist, almost upset Hillary because of it. Trump won because of it, and defied all expectations because no shoddy pundit model could account for his unprecedented level of support. Polling methodologies centered on expectations tied to the 2012 results will be upset by this factor, and any discrepancy that would occur normally will probably be exacerbated further in the 2016 results when one considers that the demographics of the 2012 election were anomalous, which will be explained further below. 2) The flip-side of this is that, since the end of the Bush Jr. era, establishment brand candidates are afflicted with a form of turnout cancer. This assisted Obama's 2008 Dem. primary upset and probably even helped his 2008 presidential run. We saw it again in 2012 with Romney's candidacy and the disappearance of a few million white voters (census had little over 2 mil, RCP estimated over 6 mil), and these voters probably would have gone >60% Republican under normal circumstances, if not moreso because of this particular cycle. We saw it again this year when Jeb Bush couldn't get any votes, which probably effectively repudiated the Bush brand forever, and we're seeing it to some degree now with the complete lack of enthusiasm for Hillary on her side. We're already seeing it with the level of black turnout in early voting. That brings up black turnout. Her expectations this cycle were, for some idiotic reason, tied to it-- probably because the most outspoken latte liberals apparently have no contact with the real world. If they did, they would know that black turnout would have dropped anyway this election, regardless of what Dems did. Obama was a one shot deal, and many of the "unlikely" black voters who voted then are well satiated with their previous contribution to that particular cause. They, as in the "unusuals," will likely not be coming out again to vote for a corrupt old white lady. Unless they find a way to cheat and effectively vote for people who themselves don't show up in person to do so, black turnout will be way down this Tuesday. In fact, if it doesn't resemble pre-Obama '08 levels ballpark-wise, then it could be an indication that something fishy went down. Seriously, expecting Hillary to repeat Obama's unprecedented levels of black turnout in '08 and '12, which diverged far from the norm established in prior cycles, was just silly. That brings us to the polls, which will be shown to be inapplicable for this election for a variety of reasons. First, oversampling Dems in poll methodology because of what happened in 2012 was already problematic on its own. The 2012 election was anomalous in terms of voter demographics because the demographics were unprecedented: unprecedented minority turnout complimented by the unprecedented lack of white turnout - in other words, the disappearance of over 6 million white votes. Check the data yourself. From the looks of it, white turnout will be up this election, and their polling models don't account for it. Black turnout is already down, and they were already oversampled. This means that there's a strong likelihood that the polls will not only come out to be inaccurate, but wildly so. Then you also have the fact that polls cannot account for those "unlikely" voters - the ones who almost never vote out of sheer apathy - and based on his performance in the Republican primary, we know that Trump is mobilizing this voter demographic. We know that there will be a "Brexit effect" already - the lingering question is whether it will be significant. Then you have the possible applicability of the Bradley Effect, which is strong in this election. This is not only because Donald Trump is the most controversial candidate ever, but also because he's weak with white college grads who typically vote Republican, much in line with media narrative. Now, this could mean one of two things: (1) the media narrative is correct, and white college grads are truly repulsed by Donald Trump, or what's more likely the case (2) when polled, college-educated whites are simply telling pollsters what they're expected to say in light of their background (they're surely self-aware enough to comply with subtle conformist societal pressure, not to mention pressure that's not so subtle), and what they select in the sanctity of the private voting booth will be far different than what polling reveals. You can see that I think (2) is applicable here, and Trump will end up doing far better with white college grads than polling indicates; I expect this will be revealed on Election Day, but we shall see. A lot of white folks are going to vote for Donald Trump, and then lie about it after the fact to their latte liberal acquaintances and co-workers. If nothing else, you can count on the fact that 2016 has been the year where the expectations of the establishment have not only been off, but way off, completely inapposite, in fact. Tomorrow, they expect Clinton will retain a narrow lead to seal the deal. I suspect that they will be wrong - again - because their expectations miss the forest for the trees, and for inconsequential trees at that. In any case, tomorrow we will learn whether we've passed the point of no return. Don't worry, he's gonna fuckin' crush her: *Edit - My bad; I cut much of the body from the message late last night without pasting it back in. Duh!