Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lykos

US Politics - Turtles crawl, the constipation sensation that's gripping the nation.

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I was hoping Bloomberg hadn’t done that badly because Trump pounces on any weakness he sees, and it’s in everyone’s best interests not to have Bloomberg’s anti-Trump ads lose credibility

If that is what you were saying, or think you were saying, I apologize.  But you have consistently been sounding like a bloomie supporter ever since he declared, at least to my ears.  Maybe it's because you don't feel this personally, as you remind us all the time, since this isn't your election, that it comes across that way to, at least, me?

Warren isn't out yet.  She had a great fund-raising last night, really great.  Money makes all the difference.  Just ask Bloomie.

As for her polling, the media decided she was unelectable -- which happened at the same time Bloomie decided to be the short white savior for billionaires.  NO WEALTH TAX! COUNT ON BILLIONAIRE BUYING EVERY INSTITUTION  -- er -- PHILANTHROPY!

 

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zorral said:

Warren isn't out yet.  She had a great fund-raising last night, really great.  Money makes all the difference.  Just ask Bloomie.

Of course a great fundraising night for Warren was $3 million.  Bloomberg has spent more than that in the past 4 hours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm catching up on the debate right now and man, Bloomberg's responses to the questions regarding the NDAs related to workplace harassment against him and his company are a train wreck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, argonak said:

When she got on the medicare-for-allish train, she had some verbal gaffes and didn't have a clear plan (not that anyone else does either, but the media pounced on her about it).  That's when I recall her numbers dropping.   Also it seems like any woman who takes the lead and starts talking a lot generally loses points.  

In my (admitably male experience), its hard for women to take leadership roles without perception of them becoming negative in a way that doesn't happen to men.  

I really think Tulsi Gabbard would be able to take a leadership role without perception of her becoming negative. Just something about her, she carries herself really well.

Maybe it's misogyny that's stopping Warren but there is something unique to her personality rather than gender that I think a lot of people find off-putting, she has this school teacher vibe to her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Of course a great fundraising night for Warren was $3 million.  Bloomberg has spent more than that in the past 4 hours. 

Oooooo.  She's not privately wealthy. Ooooo.  Wonder how many would have donated to Bloomie, if he actually deigned to play the game instead of buying it. But that's not how he rolls.  He didn't for mayor either.  He just bought it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DMC said:

We'll see how the economy is doing in a few months.  Growth seems to be slowing, should have a better idea by the end of the second quarter.  Regardless, the enthusiasm against Trump has already been demonstrated, thoroughly and across many reliable indicators.  I would definitely give him the advantage over Sanders, but it's still going to be a very close election.  I think you're exactly wrong in that the conventional wisdom assumes how easy Sanders will be able to beat, when in actuality Sanders is now being underestimated - he is still an incredibly experienced politician that can hedge to the middle during the general.

The economy is slowing in some regards, but Trump can easily fix that my dropping his trade wars. Everything Trump has been doing economically is to get him to a second term. He doesn’t care if collapses after his reelection.  

The enthusiasm against Trump may not matter. It’s shifted from 48% to 52ish%. Many experts think Trump can win the EO while losing by an even larger margin.

And no, Bernie is not going to tactic much to the center.

Quote

Even if that did happen, which it's not, and Buttigieg dropped out as well, I'd still bet Bernie's gonna get the nomination.  It's time to recognize his support is strong and intractable.

What makes you say that? Bernie’s range seems to be 25-35% support, and with Bloomberg’s disaster performance, if everyone else dropped out I think Warren would take command of the race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Oooooo.  She's not privately wealthy. Ooooo.  Wonder how many would have donated to Bloomie, if he actually deigned to play the game instead of buying it. But that's not how he rolls.  He didn't for mayor either.  He just bought it all.

?  Are you agreeing with me?  I'm just pointing out the huge financial disparity between Bloomberg and everyone else.  When previously raising $3 million in a single night would be a great accomplishment, now it's just a drop in the bucket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The economy is slowing in some regards, but Trump can easily fix that my dropping his trade wars. Everything Trump has been doing economically is to get him to a second term. He doesn’t care if collapses after his reelection.  

The enthusiasm against Trump may not matter. It’s shifted from 48% to 52ish%. Many experts think Trump can win the EO while losing by an even larger margin.

And no, Bernie is not going to tactic much to the center.

What makes you say that? Bernie’s range seems to be 25-35% support, and with Bloomberg’s disaster performance, if everyone else dropped out I think Warren would take command of the race.

Was just discussing this with a friend. Economy-wise, we are doomed no matter who wins.  If Sanders is the nominee and wins, there will be a market collapse relatively quickly (will probably bounce back, assuming underlying indicators remain ok-ish, but that's the issue).  If Trump wins, there might be short term market bump/sugar rush (though I doubt it), but he's spent us into such a freaking hole, and he has already used most of the available "goose the economy" tricks, such that no matter WHO wins we're having a downturn anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at an article on umm....Bloomberg (the news outlet, not the person) which noted that there was only a 25% chance of recession in 2020. Personally I would have placed it higher, but admittedly this is just a gut feeling based on the overheated stock market and the cyclicality of these recessions. I think the economy will be relatively strong but showing signs on sluggishness towards November. the question is how many voters it will peel off, if any, to make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He doesn’t care if collapses after his reelection. 

I think he does. If he wins reelection the next thing will be getting Don Jr. elected in 2024; gotta keep things going for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think he does. If he wins reelection the next thing will be getting Don Jr. elected in 2024; gotta keep things going for that.

Yeah, unless the economy tanks worse than in 2008, the only question is whether it's Ivanka or Junior or (somehow) both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The economy is slowing in some regards, but Trump can easily fix that my dropping his trade wars. Everything Trump has been doing economically is to get him to a second term. He doesn’t care if collapses after his reelection.

Trump, just like any president, is going to have very minimal effect on the economy.  Aggregate economic indicators have very little to do with presidential behavior.  And my point is those indicators may be slowing to a dangerous level for an incumbent.

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Many experts think Trump can win the EO while losing by an even larger margin.

Please cite.  He's not winning with less than 47% of the popular vote (with the caveat there's not a strong 3rd party candidate, which almost certainly will not be the case).  Any expert saying otherwise should give back their degrees.

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And no, Bernie is not going to tactic much to the center.

He definitely will rhetorically.  Not policywise, but he knows how to sound less like a screaming fringe guy and more like a great compromiser when need be.  This is clear if you actually observe his electoral career.

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What makes you say that? Bernie’s range seems to be 25-35% support, and with Bloomberg’s disaster performance, if everyone else dropped out I think Warren would take command of the race.

You're assuming Warren would get the lion's share of the support from those dropping out.  That's a very faulty assumption.  In fact at this point I'd say it's empirically wrong.  The "moderate" voters want to feel safe.  Warren introduces uncertainty.  Bernie they at least are comfortable with.

28 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

If Sanders is the nominee and wins, there will be a market collapse relatively quickly

This is an exaggeration among Wall Street types.  I admit that that means it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, but Bernie being elected president is not independently going to tank the economy.  By the time it happens, market analysts will have already adjusted to that probability.

12 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

there was only a 25% chance of recession in 2020.

There doesn't need to be a recession to screw Trump's reelection hopes.  Significantly slowed growth is sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

?  Are you agreeing with me?  I'm just pointing out the huge financial disparity between Bloomberg and everyone else.  When previously raising $3 million in a single night would be a great accomplishment, now it's just a drop in the bucket. 

Ah!  Well, then, I agree with you! :cheers: 

It really seems like sexism to me, this determination by the media and the pundits, that Warren just isn't good enough to run for election against kong-kong.  But she was enough to scare the bejeezus outta bloomie -- she surged, he declared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Was just discussing this with a friend. Economy-wise, we are doomed no matter who wins.  If Sanders is the nominee and wins, there will be a market collapse relatively quickly (will probably bounce back, assuming underlying indicators remain ok-ish, but that's the issue).  If Trump wins, there might be short term market bump/sugar rush (though I doubt it), but he's spent us into such a freaking hole, and he has already used most of the available "goose the economy" tricks, such that no matter WHO wins we're having a downturn anyway.

I have been watching as momentum in the market has created some absolutely cray-cray (a word which I could actually talk about in my words that bug you thread) stock charts. It's something that's really indicative of a late-stage boom market. Look at the stock charts of many companies in the news and you'll see a climb in price that resembles the favourite side of Pike's Peak for rock climbers.

Honestly, the last time I saw charts like that was just before the dot.com crash in 2002. Watching Tesla go up by 40, 50, 80, 100 dollars or more in a day looks just like that craziness. Yes, dot.com was crazier because those companies were just ideas with no earnings, but it looks like the day traders have come back with a vengeance.

I expect a correction sooner than later, but God only knows, this market has brushed off every single piece of bad news that comes out so far. Maybe the disruption that COVID-19 is creating is finally sinking in.

We could have a correction now and then a very ugly September. Septembers can be bad because it's late in the year, and the previous quarter's numbers have come out and the realization sets in that there's no hope of companies making their numbers.

That should make for an interesting November. If it happens, Trump supporters could very well once again brush off bad news and blame events in China that Trump had no control over, even while they gave him credit for Obama's 8 years. If you want to see a good example of that, look up CNN's interview with Peter Navarro a few days ago where he harangues the interviewer saying the economy under Obama was a brutal, ugly economy, even while she puts up the job numbers and lists the quarters with +4% growth in GDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Darryk said:

I really think Tulsi Gabbard would be able to take a leadership role without perception of her becoming negative. Just something about her, she carries herself really well.

Maybe it's misogyny that's stopping Warren but there is something unique to her personality rather than gender that I think a lot of people find off-putting, she has this school teacher vibe to her.

Nah. Warren’s problem is that she’s trying to be the middle ground candidate. She wants to be progressive enough for Sanders supporters but not scary to Biden supporters. But whenever the center attacks her to push her to the right she gets criticized by the left for abandoning and softening up on stances she used to endear herself to them.

 

Shes great at debates but is trying to pull off a difficult balancing act and she’s stumbled doing it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It really seems like sexism to me, this determination by the media and the pundits, that Warren just isn't good enough to run for election against kong-kong.  But she was enough to scare the bejeezus outta bloomie -- she surged, he declared.

I like Warren the best of any candidate left, and hope I get a chance to vote for her when MD votes.  But I think there is a significant portion of the Democratic electorate that is scared of nominating another woman against Trump.  Yes, I'm aware of how incredibly frustrating that answer is to women, because it is indeed total bullshit that the sample size of one woman means that no woman can beat Trump.  Nonetheless, I think it means that the already significant challenges that a woman faces when seeking office are amplified for this cycle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Was just discussing this with a friend. Economy-wise, we are doomed no matter who wins.  If Sanders is the nominee and wins, there will be a market collapse relatively quickly (will probably bounce back, assuming underlying indicators remain ok-ish, but that's the issue).  If Trump wins, there might be short term market bump/sugar rush (though I doubt it), but he's spent us into such a freaking hole, and he has already used most of the available "goose the economy" tricks, such that no matter WHO wins we're having a downturn anyway.

We’re of like minds. I think it’s entirely possible that stock market collapses before Bernie is even sworn in if he wins, and even if Trump does win, the economy is bound to come apart sooner than later. You’re also right to say that Trump has goosed the economy in  irresponsible way, leaving us vulnerable if a crash does come.

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think he does. If he wins reelection the next thing will be getting Don Jr. elected in 2024; gotta keep things going for that.

Maybe, but didn’t he once say that he’s not worried about the debt post his presidency? If so that suggests he doesn’t care that much once he no longer needs to be elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news, Roger Stone got sentenced to 40 months plus two years of probation. This was what I was expecting after the Paul Manafort sentence.

In the meantime, his lawyers were swearing up and down that No siree, they had nothing to do with any political interference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

 People are smart, and they're paying attention now like they haven't been in a long time.

What PLANET are you FROM???

Can YOU understand what WE are SAYING?

Raise your tenticals if you can understand our form of communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

This is an exaggeration among Wall Street types.  I admit that that means it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, but Bernie being elected president is not independently going to tank the economy.  By the time it happens, market analysts will have already adjusted to that probability.

There doesn't need to be a recession to screw Trump's reelection hopes.  Significantly slowed growth is sufficient.

1.  I did follow it with the idea that there would be a quick recovery assuming economic fundamentals are ok.  I want to be 100% clear that I don't think the stock market = economy.  The stock market is only a single indicator.  I think the market will have priced in an expected risk-adjusted outcome for both candidates.  I do think there will probably be some sort of short term either bump or drop based on whomever wins that will quickly correct.  The issue with the drop is that if the actual indicators that matter are not there (i.e., the fundamentals) the drop could be more self-sustaining. I am concerned about many non-market indicators right now. 

2.  I also agree with your second point.  And I also think it depends on how that slow growth is felt by the voting public in the key states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×