Trump’s victory was predictable

19th January 2017 by Adam Crizzle & Angela Zvesper with editorial by Mat Dowle

2016 was an unpredictable year. The UK EU Referendum results and the US elections confounded many, including professional pollsters. Numerous articles and explanations have been offered about why these results were predicted wrongly. What about those whose predictions were consistently right?

Through my work as a Website Developer, I came across a firm which specialises in analysing human behaviour.  Their Managing Director explained how they had used their behaviour analysis to accurately predict a number of key events, including the results of the UK EU Referendum, and the consequent resignation of David Cameron, and in 2008, that Gordon Brown would not win the 2010 General Election. I was cynical about his remarks as it is easy to make such statements after an event. At the same time he then went on to predict a clear victory for Donald J Trump in the November 2016 US elections with the Democrats losing heavily in the electoral colleges. In view of the polls at the time, I was again sceptical about how his firm could make this prediction.

After the US election, like many others, I was stunned to hear the results of such a major defeat for the Democrats.  I went back to the prediction I had discounted to try and understand how a firm specialising in human behaviour analysis was able to make what seemed accurate counter-intuitive predictions.  In time for the inauguration of President Elect Donald Trump as 45th President of the United States of America, at my request, they have written a summary article for this website explaining why Donald Trump won, why the Democrats lost, and how this result was predictable.  I hope that this will be the first of several articles.

Perhaps the final point to make is that their predictions do not reflect their political opinions or preferences:  the predictions are based on analysis of behaviours.

Mat Dowle
Coeō Creator and Developer

How we predicted Trump’s victory

Little is certain in this life. The work of Hillcroft House is about developing probabilities in a range of situations. It is based on an understanding of behaviour, how people learn and communicate and our knowledge of key events in their lives. In the case of predicting Donald Trump’s victory we set it against the wider political and economic context.  Although similar conclusions have been drawn since the election about why Trump won, everything stated here was predicted in advance of polling day.  By the time that day arrived the Hillcroft House team believed that his victory was assured.

Key factors:  the post-recession economy created a swathe of middle Americans who felt that they had lost out; that money was being ‘wasted’ on liberal projects while the quality of their lives declined.  In these circumstances they wanted someone to listen and reflect their concerns and in Donald Trump they saw strength.  He is a perfect model of a modern day demagogue.

His key behaviour: a highly dominating and charismatic style with a strong aural learning and communication preference.

The series of 2016 Republican Presidential Debates where Donald Trump took out the opposition, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, show precisely how he was so effective.  Essentially he defeated the official Republican party.  This should have been a profound wake-up call to the Democratic Party.

There is nothing essentially new in post-truth politics.

Donald Trump:

  • used a range of tried and tested persuasion techniques, which have been used frequently throughout history by leaders who share his behaviour patterns and learning style;
  • capitalized on fear and greed to create a bogeyman;
  • repeated statements frequently so that they became perceived facts, even if they were essentially untrue;
  • simplified complex questions and presented simple ‘tough guy’ solutions;
  • personified himself as the champion of the working men and women, separate from apparatus of government and the party machine;
  • used social media in a ‘hands-on’ way and led from the front:  elections are often won by those who use the latest media most effectively. This is true of newspapers, radio and television;

Trump’s  supporters
Although more work is required, our indicative research findings suggest that a significant number of core Trump voters share behaviour patterns which are diametrically opposed to Trump’s own. This group’s upper quartile needs are for security, order and safety:  in Trump they saw someone who would meet their needs, and they were prepared to discount or overlook what they may not like.

He also appeared to understand rather than dismiss their concerns.

His use of social media enabled him to connect with this core group and form an in-group who felt included.

He could have been defeated:

The Democrats lost themselves the election:  it wasn’t simply that Trump won but that once he was confirmed as the candidate it was clear that Hillary Clinton did not have the behavioural style and skill set to take him on.  She and her team were not expecting anyone like Trump.  Her style relied on rational dialogue, and an established way of engaging.  The Democrats believed that people would see through him, and did not take his threat seriously.  They failed to see, to paraphrase Terry Pratchett, that many voters are “not at home to Mr Reasonable”.

Unlike Trump, Clinton appeared to dismiss the concerns articulated by many voters as unworthy instead of engaging and addressing them.  While not all voters would have been satisfied by more moderate proposals, they would have felt listened to.

When Clinton secured the Democratic nomination she then failed to make Bernie Sanders her running mate.  This was a crucial error.  He would have secured key demographics that switched to Trump.  Clinton did not have the critical powerbase among key swing voters.

By remaining in the race, Clinton helped to ensure Trump’s victory.  With a higher level of behavioural awareness, she would have pulled out of the race and conceded to Sanders. With Sanders as the Democratic candidate, it would not have been a foregone conclusion that Trump would have won the election on 8th November 2016.

To defeat Trump required an aggressive style from the outset which mirrored Trump’s own.  His misrepresentations required constant challenge in the simplest terms, repeated over and over: as in ‘That is a lie’. The Democratic candidate needed to come down like a hammer, over and over again.

By effectively mirroring Trump’s own behaviour Sanders would have put Trump in a stressed position, increasing the probability that he would have lost control at key points during the campaign, and risked undermining himself in the eyes of his supporters, who would then have looked to Sanders as the strong man.

Sanders had the necessary behaviour skills to take Trump on effectively:  Clinton allowed Trump’s misrepresentations to go unchallenged until they were lodged in the public mind as ‘truths’.

The Democratic party also failed to read the signals, using old style polling techniques of doubtful value:  footage of people being questioned about their voting intentions showed clear body language and speech pattern evidence of lying to the pollster.  While some of Trump’s supporters were open in their support of him, others were embarrassed about what their peers would think of them if they came out in support.  Nevertheless they voted for him and not Clinton on the day, as the visual evidence indicated they would.

The final damp squibs which confirmed our belief in his victory

The Pussy-gate scandal in October 2016: using video footage from 2005 so late in the campaign failed to have the impact that the Democrats wanted and hoped for. By that point it could even be said to have appeared desperate.  Using it earlier on, in the context of a more hard hitting and aggressive campaign, would have increased the probability of its impact. By this stage of the race we saw increasing evidence that more people were inspired by Trump than they were admitting in the polls.

Celebrity Concert early November 2016 in support of Hillary Clinton:  people were leaving early and not staying on to hear what she had to say.

Trumps response was stunning... “ the way I didn’t have to bring JLo or Jay Z the only way she gets anybody, I’m here all by myself. Just me, no guitar, no piano, no nothing.”


The election was not a foregone conclusion from the outset, but as events unfolded it became increasingly likely that Trump would win.

In a different economic environment Trump would have had little appeal, but once he had secured the Republican nomination so convincingly, the Democratic candidate was no match for his message and style.  We watched while Hillary Clinton floundered against him.  What the Democrats required was a candidate who mirrored Trump’s style and could have taken him on with an equal measure of aggression, and given their own promise of change.

Additional information:

How big a factor was the Russian involvement?
Whether or not Russia did contribute towards undermining Hillary Clinton prior to the election, while a serious matter, this had relatively little overall impact on the outcome of the election on 8th November 2016.  Those who tended to believe it most strongly were already Clinton supporters.

How Obama helped Trump’s resolve
The 2011 White House correspondents’ dinner was an indicator. President Obama mocked Donald Trump. Although some found this amusing, there were other options available to a serving US President to prove the authenticity of his birthplace.

Seth Meyers speech afterwards did very little to help matters either.

Based on Trump’s stressed behaviour pattern, and other case studies, these events would suggest a high probability that Donald Trump would react and want payback for this humiliation.

Did it matter that Hillary Clinton was not a man?
Our contention is that it was more about behaviour and style than the sex of the candidate, although the probability is that conservative Trump supporters, and some of the swing voters did not have confidence that a woman would have possessed the necessary skill set.  But it was not primarily a vote against a woman candidate.

Mocking Trump in the Media did not help the Democrat cause
US TV programmes such as ‘The Daily Show with Trevor Noah’, ‘Late Night with Seth Meyers’ and ‘Last Week Tonight with John Oliver’ who routinely mocked Trump did not undermine him with his core voters, but conversely were seen as offering overt and ‘unfair’ support for the Democratic Party.

Trump’s Learning and Communication style
This was a key factor in Trump’s success:  from what has been observed Clinton relied heavily on the written word, and on evidence and facts.  There was no vision and dream presented.  By contrast Trump showed a clear preference for an aural style: he talked and shared dreams:  his constituency was not looking for substance but inspiration.

Social Media and generational differences.
We have already noted that a factor in Donald Trump’s success was his more effective use of social media. His victory confounded the view that presidential candidates require youth. Bernie Sanders, another strong contender, is also five years older than Trump.  The role social media now plays in reaching out in a targeted way to groups of electors may have contributed.

Clinton won the popular vote but
“Keep in mind that campaigns make strategic and resource decisions based on the rules in place. If the rules were different, the strategy would be different. That in mind, there's no way to know for sure how the 2016 election would have turned out if another methodology had been in place.” 
Source: 270 to win 

Adam Crizzle & Angela Zvesper
Hillcroft House

Coming up next:

  1. Dealing with the new reality:  is working effectively with President Trump a possibility?
  2. The key actions President Trump has taken since 8th November 2016 that can contribute towards his success.
  3. The key errors President Trump has made since 8th November 2016 that can contribute towards his downfall.
  4. What the Democratic Party and its supporters are (inadvertently) doing to sustain President Trump

Source Data:

  • Hillcroft House Reports
  • Emotions of Normal People, William Moulton Marston
  • The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli
  • Meditations, Marcus Aurelius
  • The Art of War, Sun Tzu
  • Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection, Neil D. Fleming and Colleen Mills
  • Bad Leadership, Barbara Kellerman
  • The Master and his Emissary, Iain McGilchrist
  • Brief report - The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (2002), Delroy L. Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams
  • The Dark Side of Personality, Virgil Zeigal-Hill and David K. Marcus
  • Nonverbal Messages: Cracking the Code: Paul Ekman
  • Telling Lies, Paul Ekman
  • Liespotting, Pamela Meyer


This article is Copyright © Coeō 2017. If you wish to republish this article, please contact


Understanding human behaviour can help us effect positive change

Mat Dowle, the Creator and Developer of Coeō, is negotiating with the human behaviour specialists who wrote this article to allow our community to have access to their online behaviour questionnaire and explain how to use this knowledge to assist in achieving our individual and shared objectives. If this is something that interests you, please click the button below.

For any media enquiries please contact

Your comments

If you find the article interesting, let us know if there is a subject that is important to you that you would like the team at Hillcroft House to discuss, using their Behaviour Analysis model.

Deleted User
What they probably didn't predict is Elon Musk
Friday 20 January 2017, 10:39:25
good read
Friday 20 January 2017, 11:25:30
Jonathan Shackleton
Very Interesting Mat it's a strange old World especially the latest stuff Sorros has been going on about. I think he's already got his finger on a trigger, well he'll of paid someone.
Friday 20 January 2017, 11:44:10
Mat, I want to thank you publicly for this website. It has changed my life and I think everyone here would agree. As these actors perform their roles on the world stage it can be confusing and hard to decide what to do. We must use discernment and share wisdom with each other to avoid this confusion. With that said, I encourage everyone to check out this article by Brandon Smith (who also saw this coming):…
Friday 20 January 2017, 15:47:34
Justin Nexus Booth
Truth bombs away
Friday 20 January 2017, 16:43:44
[deleted user]
Thank you very much, Matt Dowle, that's most welcome! Although I discover much truth about why things have come to pass, it's very useful to receive tools or hints for tools, so that it can be foreseen also, what will come to pass. I'm very interested to become wiser in this. What I've noticed lately, is that my instinctual reactions, expectations and projections can be hugely in the way of objective observation of what's really going on and it feels as if I'm in a learning curve right now, to find more clarity about it. So, proficiat for introducing this here!
Friday 20 January 2017, 17:46:32
andy s
Don't vote, it just encourages them!
All the best to you all,
Saturday 21 January 2017, 03:07:19
Nicole L
According to our research, Voting takes away voter proxy as an official/ unofficial shareholder of our countries. It's who they do it to control everything.

People need to take back their proxies since everything in incorporated and all main shareholders MUST vote or assign their proxies to someone they trust to vote for them. It's how corporations work for the most part.

They have taken away our rights to automatic pure direct democracy.

However, the most common excuses governments use. is the assumption that our countries are too big, but that's not true. Bottom up governance community to community can work.

it's why we created for Canadians to take back their proxies, without having to ask anyone's permission other than the majority of Canadians in each Province. and rights as the country's, official true shareholders of our Crown Corporations as well.
Saturday 21 January 2017, 15:24:12
Nicole L
Here is our official EU press release for Canadians abroad. MONTREAL, January 18, 2017 /PRNewswire/ --
My Freedom 2017 Power Shift , The beginning of true Democracy in Canada.

Canadians and Indigenous Nations have launched "My Freedom 2017" marking the beginning of Direct Democracy People Power in Canada.
Canadians and Indigenous Nations have further initiated the website launch of and officially implemented the eSigning of the Canadian Citizen's Convention of Consent, legal eform that will serve as Canadian Convention of Consent Proxies, finally placing the People as being the official Final Decision Makers for Canada once majority of the signed agreements has been reached within the Provinces and Country, retroactive to the implementation of the 1931 Statute of Westminster.

How can this work? Once the Canadian Citizen's Conventions of Consent are eSigned by the majority of the People in the Provinces and Territories in Canada then, the only thing standing in the way of Canadians and Indigenous Nations to having Final Decision Making Authority is the much needed removal of the text, "the Queen in right of Canada" and "the Queen in right of the Provinces" in exchange for "the People in right of Canada" and "the People in right of the Provinces" within all Constitutional and Corporate documentation as it should have been done in 1931 or at least in 1982. Finally, both the Canadian Citizens and the Indigenous Nations can move forward together in building a new Two Row Canadian Constitution.

Historically: In 1982, Canadians were finally placed above the Institutions (Governance and Parliament) and the Constitution within the 1982 Constitutional patriation, however to this day, the changes were never formally made official within any Canadian Constitutional and Corporate documentation. Once the Citizen's Conventions of Consent are eSigned by the majority of the People, Canadian Citizens and the Indigenous Nations would be in control over their governance and the type of system they want, control their finances and resources and have final decision making authority in all decisions. They could further have an official Proxy as being the official stakeholders and shareholders. Taxation would then become dividends instead of a burden.

Canadians can also eSign the Citizen's Convention of Consent legal eform via Mammii's Democracy Trivia Quiz App on iTunes, Google Play and through our various partner website. Tel: +1-519-774-0850
SOURCE Edu-Sante Research Inc.
Saturday 21 January 2017, 15:31:37
Hi Matt, I found this article very informative. I would like to know if they could write an article explaining how to help people be open to learning about The Event. Are there simple personality profiles that they could describe and then could they provide examples of ways to approach sharing the truth? Also do they have ways to call people to action, specifically regarding the active participation in the weekly meditation? Thank you so much.
Sunday 22 January 2017, 04:52:33
[deleted user]
Sonja, there's no way we can bypass free will. Each human being needs to reach his or her own moment of awakening.
If there are personality profiles showing evidence of being open to learning about The Event, or participating in meditations,
they're not the ones who you need to approach, for they will make that move by themselves. Nature has placed wise boundaries
in these sort of attempts, as I perceive it

Not meaning to swipe your true heart's desire or good intention. As I perceive it, there's a rare and humorous aspect to your request.
An urge to work hard on doing service to others, or to be sure of safety for yourself, pushing against doors and risking it may work
against finding the results you desire. Can you see it?
Sunday 22 January 2017, 09:47:40
Hi Pastinakel, the research is not about overriding a persons free will. It is about speaking to them in a language that will help them to hear. They make the choice, based on their consideration.
Sunday 22 January 2017, 17:21:42
[deleted user]
Yes, thank you, Sonja. I'm in the middle of an issue, about 6 years old and very sensitive to being overruled right now.
It's my own state of being, expressed in my former comment. I thoroughly appreciate your request to Matt Dowle
Sunday 22 January 2017, 17:57:30
Got it, understand. Been there too many times to count. I appreciate you very much, Pastinakel.
Sunday 22 January 2017, 18:11:31
Interesting take on the issue. Perhaps a better poll was to have asked how many people would rather be subjected to [human behaivior]: a law breaking, lying, murdering, rapist enabler, alcoholic, lying, pay-to-play enabler, did I say liar, career politician? It was obvious after the primaries trhat the vast majority of voters (living in 48 states -not including CA, and NY) are intelligent enough to have read correctly the media bias. DT was merely a statement that we have had enough with the Liberal progressives dismantling our democratic REPUBLIC. Thanks TEAM Obama/Clinton!
Sunday 22 January 2017, 19:05:30
Linka c
thankyou for sending and sharing to me i am very grateful and interesting reading
Wednesday 25 January 2017, 10:44:08
[deleted user]
Just like Donald Trump won the hearts or gutfeelings of Americans living on the breadline and low educated, Geert Wilders won the Dutch gutfeelings of those in similar conditions. It's also interesting that both men make their hair blond. I can't help being reminded of the blond hair of Malfoy and his father, in the Harry Potter movies.

Apart from these peculiar details in outer appearance, which is worth a study in itself almost, the connecting of dots in how a president, or political leader, is chosen, based on what motives, knowing of the collective mood in a population and the condition of economy, wellfare system and education, is valuable and helpful in discerning our present time.

There may arrive a certain influence that complicates foreseeing an outcome, like the ones found by Hillfcroft House, due to the increase of fluidity of our perceived reality.

Including possible shifts of timelines at present and more of the same, coming in the near future, when we move away from the 3rd dimension, travel through the 4th and enter the 5th.

But as long as the old paradigm of 3D is held on to, with history repeating itself, foreseeing of events will always be possible I guess.

That is, if the need or motive to know of this still exists, for we not only live now with length, width, depth or height, plus time, there's a new element that we begin to awaken to, begin to be aware of.

As I perceive it, that's a state of non-locality, that will gradually begin to determine our reality and our creative powers, with experiences of our consciousness present everywhere at the same time.

That sounds like we won't have any need for foresight, does it not?
Wednesday 25 January 2017, 19:00:47
This is an absolutely necessary and fabulous idea Mat. When I first experienced the cold, defensive, unreasonable responses of close family members after sharing truths I had discovered at the beginning of my awakening, I was like a dog with a bone when it came to working out WHY people who I knew to be as capable, loving, & decent human beings were reacting in such shocking, unreasonable and frankly frightful ways. My mum was the person who shocked me the most; I had expected her to embrace my information and the enthusiasm I had for sharing it, but instead I received supreme hostility, coldness, and manipulation. I went on to research reason & evidence, brain mechanics, psychology, etc and was led to a point in time I'd not anticipated at all. What I learnt, in ultra simple terms, is that any trauma that is experienced in infancy & childhood causes permanent & lasting brain damage and that the more adverse experiences we experience in our early years, the less we can accept reason & evidence as adults...! (My mum was molested and had other major traumas throughout her childhood). Of course, with this information I only delved deeper into how the level of consciousness of the parent deeply and profoundly effects their behaviour and importantly, how it effects the life of their children and it's given me a completely different perspective in terms of how I approach this web of conspiracies with people who I know are not in the right position to step up just yet; people who need to heal themselves first before they can even begin to grasp the wider picture. First, we MUST heal ourselves fully and the healing of humanity will follow suit.
Thursday 26 January 2017, 15:12:33
[deleted user]
Very well said, Brenni. It's quite a ride, exploring how other people tick and be surprised by unexpected reactions. I think I've been on a similar path, though different in expression of course. Increasingly I find proof, within myself, of the programming that our ancestors' voices can leave behind, in our genes, planting fear seeds or other seeds in it.

I'm actually sensing often, when my ancestors' voices sound through mine, when I express an opinion or judge a situation. I immediatly see the resonance with that long ago past, the struggle to survive and the righteousness of a Calvninistic religious lifestyle, in which I grew up as a minister's child. I often check myself by asking "Who's talking here?" lol

I'm discovering, almost on a daily basis now, deeply ingrained patterns of reacting, created once upon a time, in a defensive manner from the start and not by looking objectively with new eyes. As soon as I'm aware of this, I can rewrite the script of such a pattern and tell myself that the Christ light invisible in a person is present always, no matter what the expressions, in appearances and behaviour. I'm in cold turkey of the old paradigm called fixation on labeling, I guess.
And in between I"m warmly embraced by my thawing heart. The time of the lone wolf is over.
Thursday 26 January 2017, 16:55:17
I predicted Trump would win. How? He is part of the great unveiling. This is much bigger than "predictive" programming. Creator assigned Trump as POTUS. Trump has been purposed for use in restoration and disclosure. THAT'S why he won.
Sunday 29 January 2017, 15:10:35
christopher t
Trump is perfect. He has to destroy the economy to save the environment and crash the US dollar so that we can replace it with nothing. We don't need money if we use a block chain banking system where there is only one bank for everyone and we all own it. We don't need money changers.and tax lawyers.
Monday 5 June 2017, 02:40:27
Please login to make a comment

© 2014 - 2019 Coeō
Coeō © 2014 - 2019 Coeō (Matthew Dowle) | Designed and developed by Matthew Dowle | Coeō Terms and Conditions / Legal | Sitemap