If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If

[valcont]

In related news: Obama was able to admit defeat and he is going to help with the transition and I applause him for that.

 

Cardboard

 

This is what decent people do, admit the defeat and move on. I doubt it if Trump would have done that.

[onyx1]

In related news: Obama was able to admit defeat and he is going to help with the transition and I applause him for that.

 

Cardboard

 

This is what decent people do, admit the defeat and move on. I doubt it if Trump would have done that.

 

 

Appears to me you haven't either.

[Jurgis]

In related news: Obama was able to admit defeat and he is going to help with the transition and I applause him for that.

 

Cardboard

 

This is what decent people do, admit the defeat and move on. I doubt it if Trump would have done that.

 

I seem to remember someone on this forum claiming that Obama will impose martial law to prevent Trump from becoming president...  ::)

[valcont]

Appears to me you haven't either.

 

I didn't have a horse in this race. I voted against Trump not for Hillary. I just regret voting for the republican senator since I believed the polls and wanted the balance of power. Never again!!

 

His victory will not change my life the slightest. I doubt his supporter's will either.

[rukawa]

Pessimistic scenario: Recession to depression. Trump organizes the Trump-shirts. Free press suppressed. Next election cancelled. Possibly martial law. In short: fascist state in US.

 

Well if you take Keynesianism seriously a large massive tax cut should massively stimulate the economy and lead to a huge boom. The greater worry now is inflation...not depression. Paul Krugman should love Trump...he argued against austerity for years and for more stimulus. Now he is about to get what he always wanted.

[rb]

Pessimistic scenario: Recession to depression. Trump organizes the Trump-shirts. Free press suppressed. Next election cancelled. Possibly martial law. In short: fascist state in US.

 

Well if you take Keynesianism seriously a large massive tax cut should massively stimulate the economy and lead to a huge boom. The greater worry now is inflation...not depression. Paul Krugman should love Trump...he argued against austerity for years and for more stimulus. Now he is about to get what he always wanted.

I've been thinking about that quite a bit. Basically no one can know what's gonna happen because Trump is all over the place. The stimulus helps if the money goes into the real economy and is spent. So

 

1. The infrastructure plan. This will definitely help the economy. It's gonna be spent and create jobs.

2. The tax cut. Not so much help because it's geared to mostly high incomes. So most of the tax cut will be saved not spent

3. With Trump coming in will businesses cut investment due to uncertainty?

4. If Trump starts a trade war there will be job losses with maybe not so many corresponding gains. Aerospace sector (coincidentally the largest US export sector) comes to mind as greatly at risk.

 

Also how do you pass a large public spending effort, with a tax cut, and the resulting blow up of the deficit with a republican congress? Will there be draconian cuts to public spending? If so that's hugely contraction. The worst case scenario is abandoning the infrastructure plan cause he can't get it through Congress, then passing the tax cut offset by large cuts in public spending.

[Jurgis]

Pessimistic scenario: Recession to depression. Trump organizes the Trump-shirts. Free press suppressed. Next election cancelled. Possibly martial law. In short: fascist state in US.

 

Well if you take Keynesianism seriously a large massive tax cut should massively stimulate the economy and lead to a huge boom. The greater worry now is inflation...not depression. Paul Krugman should love Trump...he argued against austerity for years and for more stimulus. Now he is about to get what he always wanted.

I've been thinking about that quite a bit. Basically no one can know what's gonna happen because Trump is all over the place. The stimulus helps if the money goes into the real economy and is spent. So

 

1. The infrastructure plan. This will definitely help the economy. It's gonna be spent and create jobs.

2. The tax cut. Not so much help because it's geared to mostly high incomes. So most of the tax cut will be saved not spent

3. With Trump coming in will businesses cut investment due to uncertainty?

4. If Trump starts a trade war there will be job losses with maybe not so many corresponding gains. Aerospace sector (coincidentally the largest US export sector) comes to mind as greatly at risk.

 

Also how do you pass a large public spending effort, with a tax cut, and the resulting blow up of the deficit with a republican congress? Will there be draconian cuts to public spending? If so that's hugely contraction. The worst case scenario is abandoning the infrastructure plan cause he can't get it through Congress, then passing the tax cut offset by large cuts in public spending.

 

Good post, rb. There's also a question of inflation, which might be why banks are rallying. But that's also not necessarily good.

[muscleman]

They don't all have tough skin like me to deal with people like you telling them that they are idiots or trying to make them feel as such.

 

In related news: Obama was able to admit defeat and he is going to help with the transition and I applause him for that.

 

Cardboard

 

+1

 

I fought hard in this thread earlier but decided not to waste more time. This is my last post in this thread.

[rb]

 

Good post, rb. There's also a question of inflation, which might be why banks are rallying. But that's also not necessarily good.

I'm not worried at all about inflation. Btw if you get the inflation it means that things are going well and you got nothing to worry about. But now I'd probably take a closer look at those Fairfax hedges.

 

I think the banks are rallying today because Elizabeth Warren won't be the Chairwoman of the Senate Finance Committee.

[Jurgis]

 

Good post, rb. There's also a question of inflation, which might be why banks are rallying. But that's also not necessarily good.

I'm not worried at all about inflation. Btw if you get the inflation it means that things are going well and you got nothing to worry about.

 

Not if the inflation is caused by prices rising due to trade war...

 

Anyway, we'll see.

[rb]

That's not inflation. That's just a one time price shock.

[JBird]

They don't all have tough skin like me

 

Nobody has tough skin like you Donald, nobody.

[RichardGibbons]

Strength of character?  Ashamed?  I don't believe so. 

 

A large part of the electorate that voted Trump was fed up with the leftist bullies.  Trump supporters avoided bumper stickers because they didn't want their car vandalized.  Why would they admit to supporting Trump knowing they would be labeled racist, sexist, xenophobe, stupid, uneducated, poor, deplorable, immoral, and unredeemable jackasses?  It's not worth it.  Talk softly, vote bigly.  Bullies lose.

 

Aside from the gratuitous ad-hominem (bullying and insulting Democrats for being bullying and insulting), I think you're actually right about the general concept.  Both candidates were unpopular and controversial, so many people didn't want to deal with the BS they might have to go through if they admitted that they liked a candidate.  Hence, the high number of undecided, and potentially a lot of people lying to pollsters.  (And really, it doesn't even have to be that high.  The swing states often had a sub three percentage point difference.  So if you're polling the typical 1000 people, that's only 30 people lying to you during a really controversial campaign.)

 

Plus, the other thing is that I think by the end Nate Silver gave Trump just under a 1 in 3 chance of winning based on the data from the polls.  So, has anyone here ever rolled a die and had it come up 1 or 2?  Did you think that die was rigged? What about rolling a 7 with a pair of dice?  If you believe the polls, that's all that had to happen for Trump to win.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

Strength of character?  Ashamed?  I don't believe so. 

 

A large part of the electorate that voted Trump was fed up with the leftist bullies.  Trump supporters avoided bumper stickers because they didn't want their car vandalized.  Why would they admit to supporting Trump knowing they would be labeled racist, sexist, xenophobe, stupid, uneducated, poor, deplorable, immoral, and unredeemable jackasses?  It's not worth it.  Talk softly, vote bigly.  Bullies lose.

 

Aside from the gratuitous ad-hominem (bullying and insulting Democrats for being bullying and insulting), I think you're actually right about the general concept.  Both candidates were unpopular and controversial, so many people didn't want to deal with the BS they might have to go through if they admitted that they liked a candidate.  Hence, the high number of undecided, and potentially a lot of people lying to pollsters.  (And really, it doesn't even have to be that high.  The swing states often had a sub three percentage point difference.  So if you're polling the typical 1000 people, that's only 30 people lying to you during a really controversial campaign.)

 

Plus, the other thing is that I think by the end Nate Silver gave Trump just under a 1 in 3 chance of winning based on the data from the polls.  So, has anyone here ever rolled a die and had it come up 1 or 2?  Did you think that die was rigged? What about rolling a 7 with a pair of dice?  If you believe the polls, that's all that had to happen for Trump to win.

 

The crazy thing is, Trump supporters were painted as racist, sexist, white men for the entire election process. The newsflash from voter demographics is that's simply not true.

 

Slightly more than half of white men voted for Trump (which means slightly less than Half supported Hillary)

Around 30% of women voted Trump.

Around 30% of Latinos voted Trump.

 

A group that represents 1/2 of white men, 30% of all women, and 30% of all latinos doesn't sound like a group that can be labeled as a bunch of bigoted, sexist white dudes who are terrified of strong, successful women and immigrants.

 

The only vote that appeared to go straight down race lines was the african american vote which was close to 90% to Clinton.

 

I think the results are pretty clear - this election wasn't about race or sex like the Democrats would have us believe. It was about an anti-establishment vote from voters who are pissed off after 17 years of stagnant wages, sub-par growth, soaring healthcare premiums, an exploding wealth/wage gap, a massive run-up in Federal Debt with little progress to show for it, constant foreign wars new threats from the Middle East, and a general fed-up attitude towards the outcomes being the same from establishment Democrats and Republicans over the past 16 years. 

 

We saw the anti-establishment vote support Obama as a relative young, "outsider" who promised Change. When he failed to deliver, we saw the movement grow and move further to extremes in support of Bernie, Trump, and 3rd party candidates.

 

The DNC knew that Hillary didn't have the support of millennials and independents. She was projected to lose against Trump for that very reason BEFORE emails leaked, before the FBI's investigation results, and before the DNC selected her as the nominee. They picked her anyways. A tactical error.

[Jurgis]

The crazy thing is, Trump supporters were painted as racist, sexist, white men for the entire election process. The newsflash from voter demographics is that's simply not true.

 

Depends on how you choose to disect the votes.

But, yes, part of reason of Trump's win was due to sexism (btw, perhaps you don't realize that women can be sexist against women too).

And yes, the white racism also played the part.

Read Nate Silver's site slicing of the votes.

 

I think the results are pretty clear - this election wasn't about race or sex like the Democrats would have us believe. It was about an anti-establishment vote from voters who are pissed off after 17 years of stagnant wages, sub-par growth, soaring healthcare premiums, an exploding wealth/wage gap, a massive run-up in Federal Debt with little progress to show for it, constant foreign wars new threats from the Middle East, and a general fed-up attitude towards the outcomes being the same from establishment Democrats and Republicans over the past 16 years.

 

I'll repeat myself: let's see how many of these Trump will even try to resolve.

[Spekulatius]

 

Good post, rb. There's also a question of inflation, which might be why banks are rallying. But that's also not necessarily good.

I'm not worried at all about inflation. Btw if you get the inflation it means that things are going well and you got nothing to worry about. But now I'd probably take a closer look at those Fairfax hedges.

 

I think the banks are rallying today because Elizabeth Warren won't be the Chairwoman of the Senate Finance Committee.

 

Inflation does not mean that things are going well. I was very young then, but I do remember the seventies and things were definitely not going well.

 

I do think the banks rallied because of the perception that higher interest rates are more likely under Trump.

[Spekulatius]

A few thought son the election:

 

The rift within the populace appears to be deepening.  There are regions where 80% of the votes go to one party (Philadelphia and Democrats), while in some rural areas almost 80% of the votes go to Trump /Republicans. This makes it harder for a President to represent all the people. If only half the people feel represented by the current government, then this does not bode well.

 

Many voters are upset enough, that they are willing to roll the dice on a candidate. It is astonishing to see that Trump can actually defeat both parties and win the election. I do think that both of the above increase the risk that we get a  very wrong person as a president eventually.

 

I do see some parallel to Germany in 1933, when the Nazis took over. no, I don't think that Trump is a Nazi or even remotely should be compared to a Nazi. I do think some framework is the same, a country that is split in two fractions without middle ground, people that want change and are willing to roll the dice on who,leads the country, as well as people neglecting deep character flaws (I guess because they want change and don't care about the rest). Eventually withnthe above, I think the US runs serious risk of electing someone who will do a lot of change and not for the better.

 

Demagogy works. It's just sad.

 

Both parties seem seriously screwed up in how they elect their leaders. In fairness, Trump rolled over his party, but Clinton was the best that the Democrats could come up with? With a less decisive front runner, they sure should have won this Election.

 

I dislike Trump, but I hope he will be a better President than many think he will be. Much depends on who will run the government with him. My biggest fear is what will happen with the next Elections? The folks that want change now, who will they vote for next, if they don't get the change? It's scary to think that they will double up in change and elect a real whacko? I hope I am too pessimistic here.

 

[EliG]

 

Interesting graph. Trump got less popular votes than Romney and McCain. It wasn't a Trump surge but a Clinton collapse.

[valcont]

I think Trump's victory has given the left especially the Bernie-Warren wing a golden opportunity to destroy the conservative ideology for good. Conservatives who prides themselves in the small government, personal responsibility and free trade must be very nervous with their populist leader who has no ideological leanings and an inflated ego. Trump would not put up with an ideology that has no role for him and he ran on a populist agenda.The left wing should actively coopt with Trump to implement it rather than blocking him like the republicans did in '08. Give him the cover to walk out of the trade deals. That would also help weakening the Clinton-Schumer wing who are sold out and are corrupt. Trump would soon find out that the best he can do is to stop the bleeding and not get back the jobs. The tax breaks for the rich and fiscal reforms would take time to work out, the time that Trump doesn't have and wouldn't wait for. He would need an instant fix and will look to the big ole Govt for solutions. The Dems should help him set up all the entitlements like free education, healthcare,housing support, unemployment. Let him package it whatever the way he wants to but get the populace used to the idea of Trump(and by extension the Govt.) helping them. Off course the Republicans would balk at such measures but they have no choice and the Dems should use the division to drive the wedge. Let him kill Obamacare but nudge him towards something that has his name on it. Use him to fight the big pharma to drive down the costs. Get him to fund an infrastructure plan to provide jobs.

 

Off course the Dems wouldn't like his agenda on social issues and climate change. They should oppose it but not let it get in the way of him enacting a populist agenda. Let him kill the conservative ideology and the demographics will take care of the rest.

[Jurgis]

I think Trump's victory has given the left especially the Bernie-Warren wing a golden opportunity to destroy the conservative ideology for good. Conservatives who prides themselves in the small government, personal responsibility and free trade must be very nervous with their populist leader who has no ideological leanings and an inflated ego. Trump would not put up with an ideology that has no role for him and he ran on a populist agenda.The left wing should actively coopt with Trump to implement it rather than blocking him like the republicans did in '08. Give him the cover to walk out of the trade deals. That would also help weakening the Clinton-Schumer wing who are sold out and are corrupt. Trump would soon find out that the best he can do is to stop the bleeding and not get back the jobs. The tax breaks for the rich and fiscal reforms would take time to work out, the time that Trump doesn't have and wouldn't wait for. He would need an instant fix and will look to the big ole Govt for solutions. The Dems should help him set up all the entitlements like free education, healthcare,housing support, unemployment. Let him package it whatever the way he wants to but get the populace used to the idea of Trump(and by extension the Govt.) helping them. Off course the Republicans would balk at such measures but they have no choice and the Dems should use the division to drive the wedge. Let him kill Obamacare but nudge him towards something that has his name on it. Use him to fight the big pharma to drive down the costs. Get him to fund an infrastructure plan to provide jobs.

 

Off course the Dems wouldn't like his agenda on social issues and climate change. They should oppose it but not let it get in the way of him enacting a populist agenda. Let him kill the conservative ideology and the demographics will take care of the rest.

 

Interesting suggestion. I don't think it's that easy IRL but interesting nonetheless. :)

[DooDiligence]

He can be led by his ego & he's not intelligent enough to see where the path winds up!

 

valcont you're an evil genius...

[valcont]

He can be led by his ego & he's not intelligent enough to see where the path winds up!

 

valcont you're an evil genius...

 

DooDiligence,

  Have to learn from the history. Look at the way the Spaniards approached the conquest. Rape, pillage and plunder. Yes you can conquer the population but its hard to control and scale because of the constant resistance. On the other hand the British let the colonies live their way of life but savagely attacked their ideology and belief system and they were able to conquer the world with such a little effort.

 

BTW your attempt to defuse the tension by way of humor on every thread is refreshing.

[DooDiligence]

He can be led by his ego & he's not intelligent enough to see where the path winds up!

 

valcont you're an evil genius...

 

DooDiligence,

  Have to learn from the history. Look at the way the Spaniards approached the conquest. Rape, pillage and plunder. Yes you can conquer the population but its hard to control and scale because of the constant resistance. On the other hand the British let the colonies live their way of life but savagely attacked their ideology and belief system and they were able to conquer the world with such a little effort.

 

BTW your attempt to defuse the tension by way of humor on every thread is refreshing.

 

Thanks for that bit of history & your appreciation of the refreshments...

[LC]

My boy Bernie put out a statement on Trump:

 

“Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media.  People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer.

 

“To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.”

 

Seems about as reasonable as it can get. I wish this guy could have run instead  ;D

[TwoCitiesCapital]

The crazy thing is, Trump supporters were painted as racist, sexist, white men for the entire election process. The newsflash from voter demographics is that's simply not true.

 

Depends on how you choose to disect the votes.

But, yes, part of reason of Trump's win was due to sexism (btw, perhaps you don't realize that women can be sexist against women too).

And yes, the white racism also played the part.

Read Nate Silver's site slicing of the votes.

 

I'm aware the women can be sexist, but to make the claim that 40% of the women are sexist, you're going to need a little more data than a single women candidate losing an election...especially when there are other explanations that do a FAR better job of tying together the diverse groups that supported Trump.

 

Obviously race played the same role it has in every election. Racist white males tend to lean to the extreme right - that's been the case in every election. There wasn't suddenly a surge of racist individuals that were born 18 years ago that could vote in this election that chose Trump over Hillary. Further, minority groups outside of African Americans provided Trump a sizable amount of support.

 

I think the results are pretty clear - this election wasn't about race or sex like the Democrats would have us believe. It was about an anti-establishment vote from voters who are pissed off after 17 years of stagnant wages, sub-par growth, soaring healthcare premiums, an exploding wealth/wage gap, a massive run-up in Federal Debt with little progress to show for it, constant foreign wars new threats from the Middle East, and a general fed-up attitude towards the outcomes being the same from establishment Democrats and Republicans over the past 16 years.

 

I'll repeat myself: let's see how many of these Trump will even try to resolve.

 

Sure. I'm not saying he will or won't. I'm just saying it was clear Hillary wouldn't, which is why the anti-establishment candidate won.

 

Had the DNC selected Bernie - the DNC would have had a chance. But just as the pre-convention polls showed, Hillary lost to Trump.