Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Market politics

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Had lunch with my local brain trust yesterday. The politician said he was sending $1000 to McConnel's opponent and the economist followed suite.
Good.

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.
Fool. Friedman is most famous for the "Friedman Unit" of 6 months, where he kept saying that 6 months more of war in Iraq would fix things, really... utter arrant nonsense.

If anything the Dems are much too right wing. Polls are very clear on what's popular. Marijuana legalization, public option for health care, an end to student loans... popular. Too many Dems are too right wing to back this stuff which is why they lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unpilot and JRP3
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.

Former Republican Governor of Massachusetts William Weld is going to spend the entire campaign season attacking Trump. I don't know whether he will then run as an independent... but he sure won't endorse Trump when he loses the primary -- he's made that crystal clear.

He doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination, and Trump will avoid debating him, but he does provide a flag for overly-loyal Republicans to follow. For those who are still Republicans but oppose Trump, Weld's opposition will probably give them "permission" to vote for the Democrat.

Weld will also be pushing the "why's he afraid to debate" message about Trump, and showing that Trump is a wimp. Which won't help Trump in the eyes of his macho poseur supporters.
 
Two new analyses from Bloomberg this week make clear just how bad President Donald Trump’s policies are for the domestic electric car market and U.S. workers.

In the first report, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) explains that Trump’s plan to roll back Obama-era fuel efficiency and emissions standards for vehicles would eliminate any federal requirement for carmakers to build electric vehicles (EVs). BNEF also explains that the deal Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, and BMW struck with California last week to avoid the full rollback will not undo most of the damage.

In the second, BNEF concluded that the rapid price drops in the cost of batteries that have driven the energy storage and EV revolutions this decade will continue for the next decade.

In short, while Trump can slow adoption of high-efficiency EVs in the United States, other countries — the E.U. and especially China — will simply keep adopting them so quickly that he cannot stop the global EV revolution.

Trump’s pro-oil moves ensure only that U.S. companies and workers are far less likely to be the major beneficiaries of this massive job-creating revolution.

<snip>

Trump’s biggest effort to date is his plan to roll back President Barack Obama’s fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for new cars. That rollback would cost consumers nearly $100 billion dollars in missed fuel savings — a net cost to individual car buyers of $1,650 each (even after accounting for the higher vehicle cost) as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded in its final January “Determination on the Appropriateness” of the standards.

Rolling back the standards would also boost U.S. oil consumption by a stunning 1.2 billion gallons over the lifetime of the model-year 2022–2025 cars. It would also increase U.S. carbon pollution by 540 billion tons over that time period. But the EPA didn’t look at the impact on cars built after 2025 that would also be subject to the weaker standards, so we don’t know the full scale of the negative impact of Trump’s efforts.

<snip>
Full article at:
Trump is trying to kill electric cars but will kill jobs and the climate instead
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZRI11
A lot of things are roiling the markets these days although most observers credit the President's focus on tariffs as the base tool for trade policy. It is but one example of Trump's narrow vision and effort to discredit the value of expertise contrary to the reality he would like to create.

The scariest effort to control the creeping rot of what he and supporters consider the swamp was an article today in The Daily Beast which followed on the recent top intelligence pick to replace Dan Coates.

White House Asks for List of Top Spies During Intelligence Shakeup

The article offers a plausible reason for the request in order to find a replacement. A dark analysis in terms of Ockham's Razor suggests another motive: Putin is getting really pushy now. He wants an immediate additional payoff hedging against the possibility his chosen president may lose re-election. Executing a few U.S. spies would fill the bill.

Paranoia, yes. But can you imagine the anxiety of the Intelligence Community? Remember Barr being granted carte blanche power to declassify information regarding the Russia probe?

Was the devil listening when Obama was scorched by his minister when he said in a sermon: "God damn the United States." It's all Obama's fault, you know.
 
Last edited:

19th century solutions to 21st century problems! I've seen the breadcrumbs of what they've been doing.

A lot of things are roiling the markets these days although most observers credit the President's focus on tariffs as the base tool for trade policy. It is but one example of Trump's narrow vision and effort to discredit the value of expertise contrary to the reality he would like to create.

The scariest effort to control the creeping rot of what he and supporters consider the swamp was an article today in The Daily Beast which followed on the recent top intelligence pick to replace Dan Coates.

White House Asks for List of Top Spies During Intelligence Shakeup

The article offers a plausible reason for the request in order to find a replacement. A dark analysis in terms of Ockham's Razor suggests another motive: Putin is getting really pushy now. He wants an immediate additional payoff hedging against the possibility his chosen president may lose re-election. Executing a few U.S. spies would fill the bill.

Paranoia, yes. But can you imagine the anxiety of the Intelligence Community? Remember Barr being granted carte blanche power to declassify information regarding the Russia probe?

Was the devil listening when Obama was scorched by his minister when he said in a sermon: "God damn the United States." It's all Obama's fault, you know.

Is the article you posted a different one? This article just talks about Trump wanted a list of management people at the intelligence services to replace Coats. I didn't see anything about any rumors about handing over American spies to the Russians.

If I was in the CIA and got a request from Trump for the identity of spies working for the US in Russia, I would give a list of people loyal to Putin and let him kill off his own people.
 
Nor did I. Using Ockham's razor to reducto absurdum, I posed an hypothesis. One never knows what a close shave will reveal about reality once the veil of a beard is removed.

Who knows for sure what Donnie is thinking? He might just be searching for a loyalist to tear apart US intelligence agencies. He wants someone as loyal as Barr as DNI.
 
And on the Tit-For-Tat front -

Saw a bumper sticker that read

Mitch Mitch Putin’s Bitch

It may have been inspired by this:

I came across it a few days ago and I think it's been making its rounds.

In other news I get a sense the Republicans are getting very nervous about white supremacist terrorism. My SO and I were talking about it last night. Over the last couple of decades the Republican party has become all about winning and very little about governing.

Every time a prominent Democrat pops up above the crowd, conservative media does everything it can to tear them apart. With Bill Clinton it was infidelity, with Hillary Clinton it was her shiftiness, and I watched them do it with Barack Obama. They threw everything against the wall and went with the only two things that stuck: the fact his father was not an American and racism.

They spun wild stories that were impossible to actually happen in the real world to get people to doubt Obama's legitimacy on grounds he might not be a natural born American (even though SCOTUS would almost certainly rule that 14th Amendment birth citizenship counts as natural born) and did lots of dog whistles about racism.

Then along came someone who made audible whistles about racism and the base who were already primed went for him. They made a bargain with the devil letting loose one of Americas darkest demons to hurt a Democratic president and they lost control of the party to a malignant narcissist and now nut jobs are becoming violent.

There are elected racist Republicans who probably secretly think this is a good thing, but some Republicans like Rick Wilson and Anna Navaro have been very concerned since 2015, the number of Republicans who are having qualms about all this is growing. A state senator from Nebraska spoke out about it yesterday.

Unfortunately the elected Republicans are in a catch 22 of their own making. They need the racist, nut job base to get nominated or someone who really is a nutjob will primary them from the right, but they need the independents and moderate Republicans to get elected in most places.

2020 might be the end of the Republican party as a force in American politics. They have been hijacked by extremists to such a degree that the moderate Republicans and right leaning independents they need to rely on to get elected are getting queasy about voting Republican. Now today the trade war with China is hitting the markets hard and could trigger a recession.

The signs are there for this to be an election to start a new party system.
1) Party systems last 30-50 years, this one started in 1980, 39 years ago.
2) At the end of a party system there is a national feeling that things are falling apart. Sometimes they literally are like 1929-1932.
3) The midterm election before the changing presidential election is usually a big win for the out of power party.
4) The last president of a party system is, with one exception (McKinley), a one term president who is seen as ineffective.
5) The first presidential election of a new party system often changes the electoral map as a new coalition comes together to win. The signs of this are the weakest of the factors, but suburban voters and women are trending much more towards Democrats now than they have in a generation. The party vote gender gap is the largest since women got the vote.

The new coalition is usually regional, but it looks like the new coalition is going to be cut along different lines: urban+suburban, women, added to the existing Democratic base. Places that are very rural will probably remain conservative strongholds, but the rest of the country will be voting against them.

The factors working against a new party system sweeping in next fall are Russian interference and the conservative propaganda machine. Russian interference is blunted by people knowing it's happening, but they can still hack into voting systems can cause mischief. The conservative propaganda machine is getting weaker too, and some within it are beginning to express some doubts about "dear leader" and his policies.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Intl Professor
Matt Rogers of Politidope set a custom 270ToWin map to the latest Civiqs approval data for Trump, but he made an error with Florida.
Twitter

Here is the source with state approval rating breakdown:
Civiqs

I did a fixed map with Florida corrected
ElectoralMap_190808.jpg


In a re-election campaign presidents usually get a vote very close to their approval number. This is because a re-election is first and foremost an initiative on the incumbent. The first question a potential voter asks themselves is "does this person deserve another term?" If the answer is "yes" they look no further, which is why incumbents tend to get re-elected. Even a better challenger doesn't get a second look because too many voters have their mind made up.

Anyone who has a negative opinion about the incumbent is going to give the challenger a look, which means a challenger has a shot at unseating an unpopular incumbent. In 2012 Romney failed because there were enough people willing to look for someone else, in the end a large enough percentage of the undecideds looked at Romney and found him lacking. In 2020 Trump is facing a solid wall of around 52% who have already decided "hell no" to the above question. There are quite a few more who think "probably not" and any viable Democrat will get their vote.

A situation like 2016 is unlikely this time. 2016 was an odd situation because both nominees had huge negative approval numbers. A large percentage of people disapproved of both candidates, which I don't think has ever happened in a major election in the US before. Whatever happens on the Democratic side the Democratic nominee is almost certainly going to be more likeable than Donald Trump.
 
My take on Brian Williams' question is a bit different from the people on that show. I think he did exaggerate the question too much. But people in flyover country tend to be very wary of people they perceive as coastal liberals coming in and telling them that they will create a bunch of green jobs to replace all the jobs that went over seas.

A lot of flyover country is economically depressed. That's why the upper Midwest is called the Rust Belt. That region was the heart of US manufacturing for most of a century. Not just the car industry based around Michigan, but other manufacturing industries were scattered throughout the region.

In 1940 the US was in the position China is now. Even with the UK and Germany ramping up production for the war effort, the US made around 50% of the entire world's manufactured goods. By 1945 is was more then 75%. A lot of manufacturing was done in the cities and towns of the interior US. That started going overseas in the 70s and while much of the coast shifted to other industries, the interior became economically depressed and never came back.

I read an article 10 or so years ago written by someone who crossed the US taking the back roads and just about every town had some kind of industry that was shuttered whether it be a mine or a factory. They would ask about the local economy, making small talk with the locals. Everywhere the story was the same, "things were great until the town industry closed, but we'll be fine again when it re-opens"

The Republicans have been very effective in shunting that anger towards coastal liberals and immigrants. Most of those people did lose their job to a foreigner, but it was a foreigner who never set foot in the US. The fiscal policies of the friends of the Republicans blaming liberals and immigrants were the ones who sent those jobs overseas.

But because these people have been subjected to 30-40 years of this propaganda it's politically very difficult for anyone left of a Fox News host to go in there and suggest anything that needs doing to that would employ them again because the jobs we can get people doing are mostly jobs the right wing elite have been talking smack about for some time now.

Republicans want to keep these people stressed and underemployed because that keeps them voting Republican. If Democrats promised green jobs and then delivered, these people might start voting Democrat and the Republicans would be out of power in most of the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: STARR X
Status
Not open for further replies.