Market politics

[Intl Professor]

There were rumors early on that Trump was trying to figure out how to resign and not look like a "loser". He's now got his ego so wrapped up in the job he doesn't want to leave.

There is something up with Mike Pence. He's got the look of someone on lots of Prozac or disassociating in a big way. His performance at the ICE detention facilities was a good example. He was obviously there and is in the video shot, but when asked about it the next day he declared it all fake. He also was wandering around the facilities like a zombie while everyone else with him was deeply shocked at what they saw.

There are also stories that have come out that when the Access Hollywood tape came out a couple of weeks before the election Pence's wife told him to withdraw from the ticket and when he doesn't she threatened to leave him and at minimum she refuses to be anywhere near Trump. I think being around Trump for the last 2 1/2 years has broken Pence. I think he's realizing he made a devil's bargain and it was a very bad one for him. He might be on some kind of medication to keep him from thinking about it.

Trump and the Republicans in general don't understand how the Democrats work. Since Reagan the Republicans have worked on a military model. There may be a bit of back and forth about who the next leader will be, but when the leader is established, everyone falls in line behind them.

The Democrats have more of a large Italian family model. To an outsider it looks like there are many feuds going on and there are loud disagreements, but when push comes to shove, the family pulls together. Right now they are more united in purpose than ever.

I read an article by a reporter who had gone to the Netroots convention this year. He asked the crowd who supported which candidate and the two most popular were Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders with some support for other candidates, except Biden. There was not a single person who supported Biden, but when asked if they would support Biden if he was the nominee, everyone said "yes!", though most said they wanted a progressive VP choice. The slogan everyone was saying was "vote blue, no matter who!"

Trump has united the Democrats more profoundly than anything in recent history and even many right of center voters are thinking blue next year. I hope it's enough to flip the Senate. It does look like McConnell has a serious opponent, she's a retired Lt Col Marine and fighter pilot and a moderate Republican. A good combination for Kentucky. McConnell has the lowest approval rating in his home state of any sitting Senator. But there are other seats that will be easier to pick off.

Had lunch with my local brain trust yesterday. The politician said he was sending $1000 to McConnel's opponent and the economist followed suite. The politician is really expecting Trump to win because the Dems are too left—mirroring an op ed in NYT a day or so ago by Tom Friedman.

 

[wdolson]

When it comes to our president, George Orwell was an optimist.

Nobody ever thought that anyone that crazy or that dumb could get elected in an established liberal democracy.

Had lunch with my local brain trust yesterday. The politician said he was sending $1000 to McConnel's opponent and the economist followed suite. The politician is really expecting Trump to win because the Dems are too left—mirroring an op ed in NYT a day or so ago by Tom Friedman.

Nate Cohn has a similar piece today:
Trump’s Electoral College Edge Could Grow in 2020, Rewarding Polarizing Campaign

Trump won in 2016 by a narrow margin thanks to a confluence of several factors:
1) Trump was politically unknown and was only known as a fake successful business guy on reality TV as well as the rest of the image he'd been pushing for decades.
2) The Democrats nominated someone who was deeply disliked and the nomination process left a significant chunk of the Democratic coalition in a bad mood.
3) The media bent over backwards to portray Clinton and Trump as equals even when they had to heavily discount Trump's weaknesses and play down Clinton's strengths. Every minor mistake by Clinton was huge news while Trump was given Mulligan after Mulligan.
4) A significant number of people thought Trump would pivot into a normal Republican at some point.
5) The Russians had a wide ranging influence campaign and hacking project that hacked into many state's voter registration records and quite possibly hacked the vote too.
6) The Republican state administrations in many states did all they could to reduce turnout in Democratic areas of their states. For example voter turnout in Detroit was much lower than normal.
7) Everyone thought Hillary was going to win, including Trump (he had no victory speech prepared) and that led a number of people who hated both candidates to vote third party or not vote at all.

2020 is a completely different playing field:
1) Trump is running on his record. It's highly likely that his administration will only pass one major piece of legislation - the 2017 tax cut.
2) The Democrats are running a huge field, but even the least liked among them is more likeable than Hillary.
3) The media is not cutting Trump any slack except Fox. They will be fact checking everything he says on the campaign trail. A huge percentage of Americans now believe he lies all the time. That means a lot of his support are people who don't like him, but are getting something they want from him.
4) Pretty much nobody thinks he's going to ever be a normal president. For a few that's a feature rather than a bug, but it bothers more Americans.
5) The Russians are still at it, but their campaign in 2018 had a lot less effect and it will likely be weaker in 2020 too. The Russians' game relies heavily on the marks not knowing they are being conned. Awareness of their games is much higher now, so chances they will succeed in moving the needle much is diminished. As far as actual vote tampering, there is some statistical evidence they did that in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida. The results in those 4 states shifted just about 1% towards Trump vs exit polls. A pattern seen in 2000, 2002, and 2004 in swing states and districts. Vote tampering can only nudge the vote about 1%, and more than that and the tampering looks too obvious. Any states where the Democratic candidate leads by more the 1% is probably safe from tampering.
6) Three key states Trump won in 2016 are now controlled by Democratic governors and voter suppression efforts are going to be a lot more difficult to pull off.
7) The chant at Netroots this year was "vote blue no matter who!" Democrats are united about voting for the nominee in the general election no matter what this time more than ever before. When people at Netroots were polled about their choice for Democratic nominee, Biden had no support at all, but when asked if Biden would get their vote if he was the nominee, support was almost unanimous. That hasn't happened before. Not to that extent.
8) Related to #1, the re-election of a president is always first and foremost an initiative on the president. Fivethirtyeight has pointed out that just about every president running for re-election gets their approval rating on election day and no president has ever won re-election with an approval rating below 48%. It will be highly unlikely that there will be a significant third party challenger on the left in 2020, though there may be a right wing alternative to dilute Trump's vote.

The political winds blowing against Trump are very, very strong. The Democrats shouldn't let up. The 2020 election needs to look like the World Cup soccer game between the US and Thailand where the US women won 13-0. The Republicans need to get crushed to send a message that a large majority in this country doesn't tolerate what the Republicans are doing.

In other news fivethirtyeight today has some signs Democrats are serious about flipping the Senate. A similar trend is happening with the money that was seen around this time in the 2018 election cycle:
Democrats Are Winning The Fundraising Race In The Senate

 

[traxila]

Nobody ever thought that anyone that crazy or that dumb could get elected in an established liberal democracy.



Nate Cohn has a similar piece today:
Trump’s Electoral College Edge Could Grow in 2020, Rewarding Polarizing Campaign

Trump won in 2016 by a narrow margin thanks to a confluence of several factors:
1) Trump was politically unknown and was only known as a fake successful business guy on reality TV as well as the rest of the image he'd been pushing for decades.
2) The Democrats nominated someone who was deeply disliked and the nomination process left a significant chunk of the Democratic coalition in a bad mood.
3) The media bent over backwards to portray Clinton and Trump as equals even when they had to heavily discount Trump's weaknesses and play down Clinton's strengths. Every minor mistake by Clinton was huge news while Trump was given Mulligan after Mulligan.
4) A significant number of people thought Trump would pivot into a normal Republican at some point.
5) The Russians had a wide ranging influence campaign and hacking project that hacked into many state's voter registration records and quite possibly hacked the vote too.
6) The Republican state administrations in many states did all they could to reduce turnout in Democratic areas of their states. For example voter turnout in Detroit was much lower than normal.
7) Everyone thought Hillary was going to win, including Trump (he had no victory speech prepared) and that led a number of people who hated both candidates to vote third party or not vote at all.

2020 is a completely different playing field:
1) Trump is running on his record. It's highly likely that his administration will only pass one major piece of legislation - the 2017 tax cut.
2) The Democrats are running a huge field, but even the least liked among them is more likeable than Hillary.
3) The media is not cutting Trump any slack except Fox. They will be fact checking everything he says on the campaign trail. A huge percentage of Americans now believe he lies all the time. That means a lot of his support are people who don't like him, but are getting something they want from him.
4) Pretty much nobody thinks he's going to ever be a normal president. For a few that's a feature rather than a bug, but it bothers more Americans.
5) The Russians are still at it, but their campaign in 2018 had a lot less effect and it will likely be weaker in 2020 too. The Russians' game relies heavily on the marks not knowing they are being conned. Awareness of their games is much higher now, so chances they will succeed in moving the needle much is diminished. As far as actual vote tampering, there is some statistical evidence they did that in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida. The results in those 4 states shifted just about 1% towards Trump vs exit polls. A pattern seen in 2000, 2002, and 2004 in swing states and districts. Vote tampering can only nudge the vote about 1%, and more than that and the tampering looks too obvious. Any states where the Democratic candidate leads by more the 1% is probably safe from tampering.
6) Three key states Trump won in 2016 are now controlled by Democratic governors and voter suppression efforts are going to be a lot more difficult to pull off.
7) The chant at Netroots this year was "vote blue no matter who!" Democrats are united about voting for the nominee in the general election no matter what this time more than ever before. When people at Netroots were polled about their choice for Democratic nominee, Biden had no support at all, but when asked if Biden would get their vote if he was the nominee, support was almost unanimous. That hasn't happened before. Not to that extent.
8) Related to #1, the re-election of a president is always first and foremost an initiative on the president. Fivethirtyeight has pointed out that just about every president running for re-election gets their approval rating on election day and no president has ever won re-election with an approval rating below 48%. It will be highly unlikely that there will be a significant third party challenger on the left in 2020, though there may be a right wing alternative to dilute Trump's vote.

The political winds blowing against Trump are very, very strong. The Democrats shouldn't let up. The 2020 election needs to look like the World Cup soccer game between the US and Thailand where the US women won 13-0. The Republicans need to get crushed to send a message that a large majority in this country doesn't tolerate what the Republicans are doing.

In other news fivethirtyeight today has some signs Democrats are serious about flipping the Senate. A similar trend is happening with the money that was seen around this time in the 2018 election cycle:
Democrats Are Winning The Fundraising Race In The Senate

I unfortunately see it as highly unlikely that Trump loses without a bump in the economy. No recession, and he probably wins. The advantages of incumbency are huge. The advantages if the economy is still steaming along in 2020 will probably be too much to overcome.

Obviously I do not want this. The Democrats need to choose carefully.

As a New Yorker, I remain disenfranchised for Presidential elections and will continue to vote for third parties.

 

[wdolson]

I unfortunately see it as highly unlikely that Trump loses without a bump in the economy. No recession, and he probably wins. The advantages of incumbency are huge. The advantages if the economy is still steaming along in 2020 will probably be too much to overcome.

Obviously I do not want this. The Democrats need to choose carefully.

As a New Yorker, I remain disenfranchised for Presidential elections and will continue to vote for third parties.

Morning Consult tracks Trump's approval by state which gives us a good idea where he's in trouble. Anywhere where he's 10 points or more underwater are going to be tough for him to win. Even -5 is going to be tough.
Tracking Trump: The President’s Standing Across America

In 2012 Obama managed to beat his approval in some states by about 4%, but that was about as far as he was able to over perform.

 

[traxila]

Morning Consult tracks Trump's approval by state which gives us a good idea where he's in trouble. Anywhere where he's 10 points or more underwater are going to be tough for him to win. Even -5 is going to be tough.
Tracking Trump: The President’s Standing Across America

In 2012 Obama managed to beat his approval in some states by about 4%, but that was about as far as he was able to over perform.

Polls are on shaky footing. It is very hard to get accurate polls, especially in states that Trump carried. There is an understanding amongst many Trump supporters that anything that they perceive as mainstream media is to be lied to, as they are the foundation of ‘fake news’. I know, conspiracy talk...

How widespread is this? Hard to say obviously, but I know it is real. I saw it in action in PA in 2016. The people I am talking about all remained silent or said they would vote for Clinton until Election Day when they met at a bar, had a big party and then went all together to vote for Trump late in the day. Yeah, I know anecdotal....

Also the polls REALLY will not mean much until the Democrats actually have a candidate. It is easy to vote for anyone but Trump, but when the choice is real and binary, all of a sudden things change. No one wanted Trump in the end, until it was rammed down their throat that they were going to have HRC. We saw how that worked out.

 

[wdolson]

Polls are on shaky footing. It is very hard to get accurate polls, especially in states that Trump carried. There is an understanding amongst many Trump supporters that anything that they perceive as mainstream media is to be lied to, as they are the foundation of ‘fake news’. I know, conspiracy talk...

How widespread is this? Hard to say obviously, but I know it is real. I saw it in action in PA in 2016. The people I am talking about all remained silent or said they would vote for Clinton until Election Day when they met at a bar, had a big party and then went all together to vote for Trump late in the day. Yeah, I know anecdotal....

Also the polls REALLY will not mean much until the Democrats actually have a candidate. It is easy to vote for anyone but Trump, but when the choice is real and binary, all of a sudden things change. No one wanted Trump in the end, until it was rammed down their throat that they were going to have HRC. We saw how that worked out.

HRC was a very unusual candidate in a lot of ways. She is a hideous public speaker, has some bad habits that make her look shifty when she isn't, sets some people's teeth on edge, and there was a mood of inevitability from the moment she started running. Everyone running for the nomination this time is more likeable.

I know several guys who were put off by both HRC and Trump, but hated Hillary more so they voted third party. This was in Washington State, so it made no difference on the state vote. Though HRC was disliked enough she lost 4 of the 12 electoral votes from Washington due to defecting electors.

Polls are just one of the factors I look at. I went through the list yesterday. There are 7-8 factors that are very different this time and all are working against Trump now. Any one factor working against him would make his re-election difficult, with 7 it's a cliff.

Nobody should be complacent, anyone who is a major party nominee could become president. Trump did in 2016 against very steep odds. All it takes if for the other party nominee to screw up badly and blow their lead. But in most elections, the outcome is predictable based on polls as well as other factors. Fivethirtyeight spends a lot of energy analyzing the horse races and the 2016 presidential election is one of the few they didn't call a long time in advance.

2020 needs to be a Democratic blow out to get real change is to happen. That means the Democratic nominee doesn't need to just win, he or she needs to post Reagan-like numbers to really move the political needle in the direction it needs to go.

On the surface this seems impossible considering the environment we've been in the last 20-25 years, but at the turn of a party system cycle wave elections do happen. The smallest I've seen was Abraham Lincoln who only got 39.6% of the vote, but 4 candidates won electoral votes in 1960. The last two cycle changes were 1932 and 1980. FDR got 57% of the vote and 472 electoral votes. Reagan only got 50.75% of the vote in 1980, but he got 489 electoral votes.

I hope a reasonable conservative like Bill Weld decides to run as a 3rd party. They would do to Trump what John Anderson did to Carter.

 

[EVNow]

How widespread is this? Hard to say obviously, but I know it is real.

Didn't work in 2018, right ? 538 forecast was pretty spot on.

At this point I think it is quite clear what Trump's priorities are in terms of governance (or the lack of it). There is going to be certain type of people who will vote for Trump - some 35% of voters, for sure. Some 5% will vote for him because they don't vote for any Democrat.

BTW, the story of '16 was that a lot of Obama voters sat out - mostly because they weren't inspired by HRC and because they thought Trump chances of a win was slim to nil. Not so in '20. The story of '20 will not be who switched votes - but who made it to the polls. That is why Biden is such a bad choice - he doesn't inspire anyone.

Still, I expect '20 to be high voltage election with high participation. Stakes are too high.

 

[traxila]

Didn't work in 2018, right ? 538 forecast was pretty spot on.

At this point I think it is quite clear what Trump's priorities are in terms of governance (or the lack of it). There is going to be certain type of people who will vote for Trump - some 35% of voters, for sure. Some 5% will vote for him because they don't vote for any Democrat.

BTW, the story of '16 was that a lot of Obama voters sat out - mostly because they weren't inspired by HRC and because they thought Trump chances of a win was slim to nil. Not so in '20. The story of '20 will not be who switched votes - but who made it to the polls. That is why Biden is such a bad choice - he doesn't inspire anyone.

Still, I expect '20 to be high voltage election with high participation. Stakes are too high.

Um I missed that. Did 538 call the election for Trump the week before? Seem to remember quite the opposite.

 

[EVNow]

Um I missed that. Did 538 call the election for Trump the week before? Seem to remember quite the opposite.

What you missed was the year. 2018 not 2016.

Polls in 2016 were more accurate than in 2012 (national vote %). Don't go by what the mainstream media (who don't understand stats) say. See for yourself - look at the evidence.

The Polls Are All Right

 

[traxila]

Yeah sorry saw that. The people I know did not do that for the off year.

I understand that it was all within the margin of error. I also know that there were definitely people out there attempting to skew the polls. Did you think the polls showed Trump winning before the election?

I was filled with dread in 2016 the moment HRC was officially the nominee, although in retrospect that moment was right from the beginning, which is one of the reasons everyone was so angry about it on the left, aside from her being a roundly despised figure in the population at large.

It is early, but I see weaknesses in all the candidates that Trump could attack relentlessly in his morally bankrupt fashion that seems to have so much traction with so much of the media and population. I am not sure who to support.

I have told my republican friends that if Trump were to flip on climate change, he would win this election slam dunk. He would not even have to really mean it. He knows how to lie and obfuscate just fine. Don’t think he is that smart.

 

[EVNow]

I have told my republican friends that if Trump were to flip on climate change, he would win this election slam dunk. He would not even have to really mean it. He knows how to lie and obfuscate just fine. Don’t think he is that smart.

He will corner the racist, AGW believers market

I understand that it was all within the margin of error. I also know that there were definitely people out there attempting to skew the polls. Did you think the polls showed Trump winning before the election?

Well, HRC did win the national vote.

Where they got wrong was in 3 states - which were very close. There were so many things that had to turn out right for Trump to win.

Given all the problems with polls (very low answer rate etc), it is really surprising how accurate they actually are, though.

 

[wdolson]

I have told my republican friends that if Trump were to flip on climate change, he would win this election slam dunk. He would not even have to really mean it. He knows how to lie and obfuscate just fine. Don’t think he is that smart.

The climate is a big issue for many Democrats, but it isn't a top issue among independents or Republicans. Jay Inslee made his whole campaign about climate and he can't even get any traction among Democrats.

He will corner the racist, AGW believers market


Well, HRC did win the national vote.

Where they got wrong was in 3 states - which were very close. There were so many things that had to turn out right for Trump to win.

Given all the problems with polls (very low answer rate etc), it is really surprising how accurate they actually are, though.

After the 2004 election a group, I believe at Princeton did a statistical analysis of exit poll results vs official election results for the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections. In normal elections, exit poll data varies from actual results by only a small margin. They found that in non-battleground states (and districts for 2002), the exit polls correlated with results as expected. But in many battleground areas the exit polls and election results differed and always in favor of the Republican. The odds of this happening by chance are astronomically small.

These anomalies completely disappeared between 2006 and 2016, but reappeared in the 2016 election results. Some data here:
2016 Exit Polls vs. Actual Results: Trump vs. Clinton | Heavy.com

There were some discrepancy in Clinton's favor in Minnesota, New York, and Washington. In Washington state the Clinton+Trump vote in the exit polls only added up to 87% so it looks like some people just declined to answer. Washington and Oregon are also 100% vote by mail, so it wasn't possible to actually ask people at voting locations. The shifts in difference between exit polls and actual results favored Trump far more than Clinton

There was controversy when electronic voting machines started coming in. The electronic voting machine companies that were favored tended to be owned by big Republican donors and a number of people showed how easy it was to hack either the voting machine or the vote counting computer. One system from, I believe, Diebold had a Windows 98 PC with zero security connected to a modem for counting votes. The votes were tallied in an Excel spreadsheet and anyone who knew the phone number of the modem and knew the format for the data could call in and change the vote count, looking like a precinct reporting. There was no call log so it could be anyone from anywhere.

I think that system has been made a little more secure, but people were showing how easy it was to hijack voting machines as recently as 2018.

2016 post election polls also show that an unusually large number of people in several swing states made up their mind in the last week. In some cases over 10%. That would skew the polls quite a bit. Remember there was a lot of controversy heaped on both Trump and Clinton in the last couple of weeks. In late October the Access Hollywood tape came out the same day Wikileaks published a trove of hacked Clinton emails, including a number of emails that were later shown to be doctored by Wikileaks or whoever gave them to Wikileaks.

The 2018 polls had a few unexpected surprises, but fivethirtyeight was highly accurate with many of them, especially the House races. There still may have been some games going on with the top ticket races in some states. Both Georgia and Florida have easy to corrupt voting systems and the top ticket races in both states were won by Republicans in seeming upsets.

The problem with electronic voter fraud is it's difficult to catch when it just nudges the results a percent or two. Especially when the media is not really paying serious attention to the story. The problem is that it's a crime so technical most people, including reporters can't understand the details.

 

[EVNow]

including a number of emails that were later shown to be doctored by Wikileaks

Not one email has been shown to have been altered.

The whole WikiLeaks thing was an effort by HRC to move the attention from her hacking the Dem primary. There were multiple media outlets pushing the exact same talking points on behalf of HRC.

 

[wdolson]

Not one email has been shown to have been altered.

The whole WikiLeaks thing was an effort by HRC to move the attention from her hacking the Dem primary. There were multiple media outlets pushing the exact same talking points on behalf of HRC.

First off there are a number of claims out there that some were:
The DNC's emails weren't only hacked, they were edited: report
Podesta emails - Wikipedia

And are you saying the Clinton campaign conspired with Julian Assange to leak her emails? Assange is on record for loathing Clinton. Mueller documented the connection between Assange and Russian intelligence during the election.

 

[Mader Levap]

Oh great, conspiracy theories are already flying around.

 

[M3Rider]

Anybody thinks macros will take a dive on 24th after Mueller's testimony if impeachment again is on the agenda? Seems like a very negative item prior to ER.

 

[wdolson]

Depends on your definition of a conspiracy theory. Technically the entire Mueller report is a conspiracy theory. He documents in exact detail the legal theory that the Russians conspired to manipulate the 2016 US presidential election. The report goes into much detail proving the theory beyond a reasonable doubt.

The way "conspiracy theory" is used in our culture is to refer to a theory that has little or no evidence backing it up and even in some cases has evidence throwing a lot of doubt on the theory. For example people who go to extreme lengths trying to make the case that Barack Obama was not born a US citizen even going as far as to claim that it was part of some shadowy cabal in the early 1960s who conspired to make a Kenyan citizen president of the US despite there being no explained reason why anyone would want to go to such lengths.

What I am suggesting is that the manipulation of the US presidential election went further than just trying to manipulate voter's minds and prevent people from voting (both well documented) to actual vote fraud. White hack hackers have been demonstrating for almost 20 years how easy it is to hack some US voting systems (the US does not use a universal voting system, in some states it can vary county to county). People who have done statistical analysis on the exits polls vs the official election results (something done by outside groups to test third world elections for possible fraud) have found some statistical anomalies that might indicate someone hacked the actual vote.

In a criminal investigation that would be probably cause, ie enough to investigate further, but not enough to convict anyone of a crime under US law. Unfortunately it is a difficult crime to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and the evidence you would need either never was stored in any way or has been destroyed as part of the after election clean up.

 

[kengchang]

Anybody thinks macros will take a dive on 24th after Mueller's testimony if impeachment again is on the agenda? Seems like a very negative item prior to ER.

No, house already shot down previous one. No point with election coming up next year

 

[StarFoxisDown!]

No, house already shot down previous one. No point with election coming up next year

Republicans and Congress have shown without a doubt that they have no backbone to stand up to their sponsors. They all hate Trump but Trump supports their interests which trumps(see what I did there) their moral conscience

 

[M3Rider]

No, house already shot down previous one. No point with election coming up next year

They shot down the one built on the racism grounds, this one

'Very substantial evidence' Trump is 'guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors,' House Judiciary Chair says

So, a diff reason. Crime is a crime, not some freedom of speech thing. I don't know either what they decide, but if laws are to be followed an action should be taken.