How well the candidate from either party satisfies 7 questions from a particular group of people will determine who the President of the United States will be after this election. The winner will be the one that proves they are the most willing to go to war with Russia and China after they are elected. Will you do your part and vote for them?
The only thing we need to agree on at this point is 1+1=2. It can't vary. The simple logic doesn't care how it makes you feel. If the information adds up without any leaps the conclusion presents itself in the simplest form, 1+1 always =2.
The determining factors in the US Presidential election won't be decided in Kiev if that's the direction you think I'm going in. Rather, along with the super-delegates, there is a secret super- majority that has existed for the last 40+ years in the USA and this is the most important election they will ever hijack and decide.
The problem with facts is once you know them, you can't argue with them anymore.
This group has a 50-year history of deciding elections. Included in that history are the deaths of over 100,000 Americans and millions of people in other countries. For them, this is the most important election of all time. This time, they want to bring the war home.
Simple Electoral Mathematics
With over 235 million eligible voters in the US, if you could count on more than 20 million of them to vote en bloc could you win? What if they were concentrated around swing cities in swing states across America? These are the cities with the highest number of electoral delegates. If any candidate could count on more than 15% of ballots cast before counting traditional party voters, could they lose?
In the 2012 election only 54% or 129 million voted out of 235 million eligible voters.
More than 20 million votes get's more mileage with low voter turnout. When you take party affiliation into account it gets even more impressive. According to 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans.
This makes it clear that 15% of the electorate beyond your party is not only enough to win a presidential election but supplies a mandate. But whose mandate in 2016?
An easier way to understand this is if your candidate is predicted to win/lose by +-3-5% points in a given state and I can deliver 7%, am I really important to you? Or if I can deliver 5-7 states this way, do you owe me anything?
What if "WE" can deliver 15-18 important states this way in your national election? How about 20 states? Would you go to war for me? Would you sanction my enemies or at the extreme give me diplomatic cover if I commit or support genocide in other countries?
The presidential primaries are where it really gets impressive. Why? No one votes. This is why candidates start with radical positions that after the convention "start to drift toward the center." After all, they need to talk to the rest of us.
When you take the above and apply it to the primaries the math goes on steroids. Only .8% to 5% of eligible voters are needed to win a state. It can translate into 40-80% of the votes cast. Don't believe me?
Let's take a look at Iowa. In Iowa, there were 2,403,229 eligible voters for the 2016 primaries. Only 15% of registered voters showed up at the polls. That translates to 357,283 voters. Or just enough to make up a small city.