2018: A National Referendum on Impeachment & (Another) “CHANGE!” Election…

The 2018 mid-terms are a few more revelations away from turning into a national referendum on impeachment.  The Democratic party may not want to go there, but Facebook will take us there regardless.  Put simply, 2018 will be another “CHANGE!” election like 2016 and 2008/2012.  The full focus will be on Congress with probably Brexit/Trump/Macron/Corbyn-like impacts/uncertainty/effects.

  • A vote for the Democratic candidate will be understood as a vote to impeach Trump.  Any and every Democratic candidate will HAVE to take a position on impeachment.  It will be on the 2019 calendar if they gain control.
  • Interesting, a no-show vote for the Republicans will also be understood as a vote “for” impeachment.  And a covert path to President Mike Pence.  This opens up the cowards way out for the (I think huge) base of Suburban affluent “business” Republicans who are still(!?!) unwilling to admit their party left them (and rationality) behind years ago.

The real unknown is how much oxygen will it suck out of the room on local or “real policy” issues.  I’m guessing a lot.  But that depends on how spectacular the blunders-to-come are out of Washington.

So far the blunders have been on par with that 2012 fireworks show in San Diego where everything got sent up at once…  Republican disarray has been my biggest surprise/confusion in 2017.  Much more so than Trump.  I knew he’d be a disaster.  But the incoherence in Congress has been stunning.   That likely continues.  We’ll see spasms of activity out of Congress, but not much gets done.

  • Healthcare reform will be Obamacare lite or (more likely) nothing at all.
  • Tax reform is dead.
  • A gimmicky tax cut could be rushed out as a sop to the Republican base.  But getting that passed will cast an even harsher light on Republican policy incoherence.  Alternative facts beget policy that only works in an alternative reality…
  • The sorry, soggy circular firing squad spectacle will further dishearten the Republican base.   Especially those forced to live in (non-alternative) reality.  Suburban women (see “healthcare”) and Obama/Trump “change” voters (see “opiods, hopelessness, no good jobs, etc…”).

The Democratic playbook is simpler.  Obstruct until 2018.  Anyone who breaks ranks can expect huge liberal push-back and a primary challenge.  Sound familiar?

  • If the Republicans hang on to control, it will be with a slimmer, more conservative majority.  The circular firing squad gets more intimate and switches to fully automatic fire.
  • If the Democrats win, we’ll see a 2 year inquisition.  Trump has already given us plenty to feed the scandal machine through to 2020.  An impeachment is certain, but the Dems probably run out the clock with “open investigations” until well into the 2020 Presidential election.  No reason to give a President Pence time to look presidential.  And there’s enough ugliness scuttling around under Trump’s various business/personal/political rocks to keep investigating until well after 2020.


I’ve been on a long hiatus.  The Trump victory and post-Trump uncertainty left me uncharacteristically (ahem) uncertain.  No strong views lightly or not.  I’ve been waiting to regain some sense of equilibrium.

OK.  I HAVE had one strong view but its just the collective “AIEEEEEEE!” over Trump.  I figured no-one needed more commentary on that.  But the fog is clearing and this particular thought sparked got me back on the horse.

More to follow.  🙂

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Its a vast, Multi-Generational Real Estate Ploy! Trump’s Victory Finally Makes Sense…!

A new study today finally reveals the brilliant, devious, multi-generational plan behind Trump.  Those Trump voters aren’t reactionaries.  They (and Trump) are Real Estate geniuses playing the long game….

The findings in the journal Science show that ocean surface temperatures during the Earth’s last warm period, some 125,000 years ago, were remarkably similar to today.  But what concerns scientists is that sea level back then was 20-30 feet (six to nine meters) above what it is today.”  https://phys.org/news/2017-01-major-sea.html#jCp

A 20-30 foot increase would put huge swathes of the US coast underwater.  An epic disaster?  Sure for those coastal elites.  But is a “yuge” opportunity for Trump and his inland voters. Thousands of miles of soon-to-be beachfront property!  Right in the heart of Trump country!  Just vote to halt every climate change initiative and wait for the waves (and money) to come rolling in…

In a generation or two, the Atlantic ocean will be lapping up on the newly created shores and newly enriched inhabitants of Appalachian Coal country.  The poorer, Western half of Connecticut will be the new Hamptons.  The newly impoverished coastal snobs will be bidding up house prices deep inland.  The Trump voter’s descendants will just laugh all the way to the bank.

The Western half of the country is more problematic.  Those coastal mountains will get in the way.  California’s “Trump country” Central Valley could revert back to an inland sea.  But everyone can’t be a winner.   And most Trump voters just want California to slide into the sea anyway…

The 1% will just roll ahead of the problem.  Probably arranging a spectacular, early bailout for their former beachfront mansions (smoke-screened by heart-tugging anecdotes of struggling Maine lobstermen and the African American Gullahs of the Carolinas).  Having abandoned the beaches, they’ll leave the rest of coastal America to its fate.  Abandonment seems to be what the 1% does best these days.  A perverted inverse of Churchill’s famous quote…

“We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

So for the rest of us (the top 10%-20% minus that all-important 1%)?  Start scouting Real Estate inland.  Contrary to the popular saying, they are making more beachfront property.  Although its going to be tricky to figure out that shoreline.  Especially if we de-fund the climate modeling efforts that might help delineate it.  Maybe just settle for someplace nice in the mountains…  🙂

Been a long radio silence here.  Party just driven by life – great honeymoon to Nepal and Sri Lanka followed by (gasp) actually moving in together.  Also driven re-calibrating, re-thinking my outlook post-Trump.  If you don’t have something intelligent to say, don’t say anything at all etc. etc.  I’ll be back to posting though.  Its going to be an interesting year!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

2 Ironies. Greens Just Gutted Environment & Climate Progess. And…

Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s votes don’t quite tip Hillary to victory in key states (like Florida).  But they were the nails in the coffin.

  • Irony 1:  The Green Party will have contributed mightily to an across-the-board rollback and repeal of pretty much everything they care about.
  • Irony 2:  The Green Party and its individual voters will find some complicated way to avoid facing this uncomfortable truth.  What a piece of work is man, how noble in his reason….
  • Bonus Irony 3:  This is all good news for professional “environmentalists” trying to put kids through college.  Lots of disappointment, anger, and quiet guilt to convert into funding.  Re-fighting old ground.  The DC log-rolling machine goes on….

The non-irony is, well, the environment.  Just don’t buy property in Miami Beach.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

I Just Don’t Understand (Suburban Republican) Women. But the Mandate is STILL for “CHANGE.”

I spent the last two days at a conference trying to wrap my brain around the emerging infrastructure of cloud computing.  Actually a welcome distraction from trying to comprehend the election.  But I woke up at 5:40 AM with brain buzzing so starting the catharsis here.

Mandate?  There is a mandate here, but its the SAME mandate for “change” that got Obama elected.   Seriously.  It is clearly NOT a mandate FOR Trump or FOR the Republican party (as much as they are trying to claim one).  Trump had 60% unfavorable ratings.  So a lot of Trump voters were holding their noses to vote against Hillary and the “establishment” she represents. An un-published post of mine from September 22 (full text below).   In 2008, Americans voted for CHANGE = Obama.

  • They didn’t get CHANGE.  At best, they got “change.. ish?”  Obama himself is a cautious centrist.  Calling him a socialist doesn’t change the fact that, policy-wise, he’s a late 80’s Republican.  Hint – ObamaCare is just Massachusetts’ RomneyCare re-warmed.
  • Moreover, the Republican Congress held CHANGE hostage.  Obama would get no victories large or small.  The threat was clear.  No CHANGE unless you elect a Republican President.  The assumption was that would be Jeb Bush, Rubio or some other guardian of the status quo.

8 years later, Americans are voting louder and angrier for CHANGE.

  • They are calling the Republican’s hostage bluff.  Backing a (nominally Republican) change agent (and total wacko).  Same goes for Sanders.  The obvious common thread is CHANGE.

Worryingly, that message already seems to be slipping away in the post-election chatter.  I guess the chattering classes can’t handle the self-scrutiny.  Although that self-scrutiny is the key first step in real CHANGE.  So it could be a tough few years in that regard.

One thing that will help Trump is a stronger economy.  We will finally get the fiscal stimulus we’ve so desperately needed. That will take the form of un-paid-for tax cuts under Trump, but stimulus is still stimulus so I’ll take it.

Will that be enough to paper over the cracks in the Republican coalition?  It’s a certainty we’ll get an orgy of small-ball corporate special interest legislation (why the market is up).  But that’s not the CHANGE Trumps voters are looking for.  A question for later…

For the market, the interesting question now is the inter-play between equities and fixed income as money flees bonds as yields go up (pricing in inflation not real rate rises). Equities are a better inflation hedge, so they should benefit. Plus we have a recovering economy so we could be off to the races for actual fundamental reasons.

What did I get wrong?  

What did I get right?

  • I did get the “angry populists vs elites” dynamic right.  I didn’t under-estimate rural, white working class despair.  I did under-estimate the white upper class’s loyalty to “Team Republican” even with Trump at the helm.  I think that’ll be a bad bet for them long-term (see below) but they made it.
  • I did expect actual voters to differ wildly from the “likely voter” models of the polls.  I just thought it would skew the other way (disheartened women not showing up, Hispanics showing up).
  • I did get that Hillary was the wrong candidate for the time.  My pre-election joke was “I wish Hillary had won in 2008 (grinding it out through the financial crisis) and Obama was running on “CHANGE” in 2016.”  Its not a joke anymore.  I just misunderstood how deeply that would prove to be true.

Kiss the Gig Economy Goodbye?  Repealing ObamaCare is going to be the first major “but can you govern?” challenge for those Republican majorities…  I’ve just married a wonderful woman with a steady job so I still have access to healthcare.  But how many other self-employed people are waking up to that worry right now?  All those Uber drivers…  Repealing ObamaCare is going to be the first major “but can you govern?” challenge for those Republican majorities.  I’d guess they make an even bigger mess of it than Obama….

I’m including below a piece I wrote Sept 22 but never got around to publishing.  Its embarrassingly “right” in its analysis and “wrong” in actually reaching the (now obvious) conclusion.  I guess I just don’t understand women (or at least Suburban Republican ones…).  But I still think this is best seen as part of a leftward swing although “establishment” Republicans already seem to be ignoring that at their (eventual) peril.


This is NOT a Democrats vs Republicans election.  This is a Plutocrats vs Plebes election.  A majority of American voters are clearly voting to re-balance a system they see as tilted in favor of the powerful.  The powerful are trying to keep things as they are.  Masses of people vs. masses of money…

A useful way to re-narrate the last decade is to cast the dynamic in power/class terms.  This is deeply uncomfortable for many in the national dialogue, but that’s sort’ve the point….  Anything to void acknowledging “everyone” isn’t middle class.

In 2008, Americans voted for CHANGE = Obama.

  • They didn’t get CHANGE.  At best, they got “change.. ish?
  • Obama himself is a cautious centrist.  Calling him a socialist doesn’t change the fact that, policy-wise, he’s a late 80’s Republican.  Hint – ObamaCare is just Massachusetts’ RomneyCare re-warmed.
  • Moreover, the Republican Congress held CHANGE hostage.  Obama would get no victories large or small.  The threat was clear.  No CHANGE unless you elect a Republican President.  The assumption was that would be Jeb Bush, Rubio or some other guardian of the status quo.

Standing behind that stasis was a numerically small number of people wielding a collectively HUGE pool of money.  They liked things just the way they are.  I call them Le Pouvoir.  But “Plutocrats” or “Davos Man” or “the 1%” (really the 1% and their 9-15% enablers) will do….  No need for a vast conspiracy.  A lot of elbow rubbing and group-think is all that needed to cohere them into a school-of-fish-like collective (non) action.  Extend and pretend….  Hope the bread and circuses are enough to keep the status quo rolling under a new set of slogans.

8 years later, Americans are voting louder and angrier for CHANGE.

  • They are calling the Republican’s hostage bluff.  Backing a (nominally Republican) change agent (and total wacko).  Same goes for Sanders.  The obvious common thread is CHANGE.
  • Le Pouvoir is in a bind.  Trying to thread the needle between avoiding Trump while sustaining gridlock in Congress.  And keeping Elizabeth Warren at bay at ALL costs (see below).  Funding Republican Senatorial candidates alongside a whole lot of foxhole conversions to the Clinton camp.

What is surprising is that anyone is surprised at voter’s deep disenchantment with Clinton.  She is nakedly the candidate of Le Pouvoir.  Sure I’ll vote for her.  Anything over Trump and the wack-a-doodle wing of the Republican party.  But I don’t think she’s going to satisfy “them.” And “they” are saying that loud and clear…

So the battle will continue on past November.  Who wins?  I’d bet on the side of the Plebes (spluttered out as “mob rule/the 47%/those people” over in the trenches of the status quotidians).

  • The Plebes have little to lose (see “Trump”) and the prod of sheer awfulness across huge swathes of the American experience (on-demand flexible scheduling of part time jobs, Epi-Pen’s price increases, WalMart’s neutron bomb effect on small downtowns, Meth, etc… etc….).
  • Le Pouvoir’s coalition will break down out of naked self-interest.  The plebes are a mass, but Le Pouvoir is small enough for individual action to matter.  And those individuals will defect.  Putting personal gain over collective self interest.  Discreetly starting to fund the “winning team.”
  • Of course those change agents are just seeking power for their own ends (see Elizabeth Warren).  But that pursuit of power will still drive change.

Looked at another way, it is really hard to thread that needle of populism vs Pouvoirism.  I think there will be too much money that leaks into funding CHANGE.  They’re in that metaphorical sled pursued by wolves.  They’ve already thrown out a whole passel of the weaker, less important passengers to those snapping jaws.  Why stop now?

So what to do?  Don’t plan for the status quo to remain.  I would position your portfolios and plans for a long swing left.  How long?  The same 20-30 year cycle as the post-Reagan swing to the right.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Who Allowed Stumpf to Be Liz Warren’s Pinata? Epic Elite Collective-Self-Interest Fail…

I just watched Elizabeth Warrren chew up Wells Fargo CEO Stumpf.  Its good theater.  But who allowed this guy up there?  Why give her a pinata?  She’s only going to beat it!  Brilliantly too (see below).

This is the elite failure that’s crept in over the 2000’s.  Bringing us all a lot of trouble.

Collective self-interest mandates that Well Fargo’s CEO Stumpf resigns loudly and bloodily after a scandal.  A Bugs Bunny opera death all over the TV news.  That would serve his own class’s interests, but not his own pride (and notably absent sense of shame).

In the good old days, the collective self-interest would have prevailed.  The boys down at the Metropolitan Club would have sat Stumpf down and delivered the hard truth.  He would have been given a moment to collect himself, left in a locked room with a loaded revolver, and immolated in an appropriately cinematic funeral pyre.  He NEVER would have gotten in front of her committee except as a “broken man deeply remorseful for his shameful actions.

Of course,  3-6 months later, he’d be back from the dead.  Serving on a few boards.  Enjoying his riches-minus-a-token-show-of -monetary-remorse.  Golfing with the guy who handed him his resignation letter.  Good sports one and all.

This is the elite breakdown that will, eventually, break down the current elites.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Elite Cynicism – The Most Valid (And Worrying) Brexit/Trump Parallel

I still think Hillary wins, but I’m incrementally more worried.  Its not the latest polling.  Its the absence of rational, principled opposition to Trump from people who should (and privately do) know better.  This is the most worrying parallel to the BREXIT debacle.

There was a lot of ink spilled over parallels between the BREXIT vote and Trump’s support – rage of the underclass, xenophobia, racism, etc…  There was remarkably little said about a more direct, valid connection.  The cynicism and cowardice of the elites who started that ball rolling, egged it on, lost control, and ultimately ran their country in the ditch.

The BREXIT vote might have been take over by an angry mob, but the campaign was begun by a cynical, self-serving, gaggle of self-aggrandizing politicians.  Most notably Boris Johnson pursuing his dreams of becoming Prime Minister.

The monster got away from them.  Their (deeply cynical) plan was for “noble failure.” Counting on the sensible center to hold while they postured and pandered on the right.  But there was no-one left in that “sensible center.” So Boris found himself facing the poisoned chalice of becoming PM only to negotiate an actual BREXIT.  A chalice he wiggled his way out of taking – proof of the cynicism underlying it all.

The monster got away from them.  This is worrying me more as the weeks go by.  Anyone with a claim to rationality knows Trump would be a dangerous, potentially disastrous president.  And they also know that Hillary would be, at worst, merely objectionable.   Yet they keep lying in public to avoid saying what they know in private…

  • Why hasn’t John McCain renounced Trump?  The excuse was he was waiting to win his primary.  But he’s won it!  So where’s the promised pivot to the center?  This goes for almost all elected “country club” Republicans.  Paul Ryan where are you?  Are they waiting for one last, epic Trump provocation?  I’m less convinced now.  They are clearly cowards (or they would have stepped up months ago).  But they are quite possibly too cynical to step up.  Deserting their posts in that “sensible center” they pretend to uphold.
  • Why haven’t more business leaders stepped up?  Where is the Chamber of Commerce?  Where are John Chambers, Jack Welch, and Jamie Dimon?  They know Trump would be a disaster.  They also know he’s a sociopath.  Can they really believe a sociopath is a better alternative to Clinton?  Or are they just hoping someone else does the heavy lifting?
  • Why is the media elite not weighing in more heavily?  I don’t expect Fox News to step up, but CNBC?  They totally rolled over during a Trump interview on Monday.  WTF?   Is it just muscle memory reflex support for “their team?”  Are they just that brain damaged by years of soft news?
  • Is this just the end game of politics-as-team-sports?  The equivalent of Penn State fans sticking up for a convicted child abuser and his (proven) enablers out of some sick tribal loyalty?

The dynamic of that cowardice are clear if indefensible.  No-one wants to step up to the bully.  To step up to the mob.  Hoping that “someone else” will do the heavy lifting.  While we all slide toward what “everyone” agrees will be disaster.  And “no-one” steps up.

What is most worrying is that the parallels echo back beyond BREXIT to a whole string of recent “Elite” failures.  Facing tough choices, “everyone” looks for “someone else” to step up to what “no-one” ultimately does.  And disaster ensues…

  • The housing crisis
  • The 2008 financial crisis, bailouts, and subsequent flubbed response.
  • The Euro Crisis.
  • The absence of meaningful fiscal stimulus.
  • The Fed’s flounderings
  • etc….

I am still mostly hopeful.  I don’t see America actually electing a madman.  But I am dismayed that so many with claims to respectability are just standing aside in the face of such clear and obvious danger.  Is it cowardice?  Cynicism?  Just pig-headed magical thinking in service of tribal loyalty?  Does it matter?  They are just colored different shades of shameful.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Fed Is Not Going To Raise Rates In September….

Why no rate rise in September?  Because there is a US Election in November.  An unwritten Fed commandment is “Thou shalt not appear to overtly meddle in politics.“**  Without a gun-to-the-head turn of events, they will put it off until December.

What I am still trying to figure out why we keep getting these saber-rattling hints from various Fed governors trying to keep the idea of a September rate rise in play?  They mostly serve to diminish the Fed’s already-battered credibility.  So what is driving them?

  • The internal debate played out on a public stage?
  • An effort to keep the markets on edge?  To what end?
  • Some sort of “talk-tough before we raise the inflation target to 3% whilst raising rates” strategy?

My hope is that the more consequential Fed news was the SF Fed governor’s recent piece questioning today’s (totally arbitrary) 2% inflation “target.  2% has become a de facto ceiling – as “targets” are wont to become.  Which has condemned us to 1%-2% inflation.  Which is pretty obviously too low.  Why?  See “negative interest rates, general malaise, and Donald Trump…”  I’d have though that was all obvious enough, although clearly a lot of people haven’t grokked it yet.

The SF Fed’s paper is short and worth a read.  Excerpts and a link below.  My takes are…

  • It is hopefully a sign of a shift as much as a plea for it.  Does the Fed shift to a 3% inflation target post election?  He certainly suggests they should.  Because the target has become a ceiling (as predicted by many), 3% really means about 2%-3% inflation vs todays 1%-2%.  2%-3% would be in line with the original idea of 2% as the mid-point target of the inflation range, not the cap.
  • This is about as close to a Fed Governor begging for fiscal stimulus.  Message to Congress etc… “stop diddling around with the politics already!.  We’re out of bullets and this is deadly serious!
  • The other sub-text is “We all know nothing will happen until after the election but we need to get teed up on this messaging shift now!
  • He is right IMHO.  Especially about fiscal policy and the Fed being out of bullets.
  • The market’s recent pep might be a sign we resolve this intelligently and positively.  Which would be a pleasant change…

** Note that its OK for the Fed to meddle in politics by NOT doing anything.  See Greenspan’s quiet contribution to Bush II’s re-election by leaving rates too low for too long.  Remember that the Fed leans Republican (see “regulatory capture“).  That was pretty obvious “action,” but in a passive aggressive way that didn’t risk blame.  Just a subsequent housing bubble and financial crisis…

Monetary Policy in a Low R-star World Excerpts Below

The critical implication of a lower natural rate of interest is that conventional monetary policy has less room to stimulate the economy during an economic downturn, owing to a lower bound on how low interest rates can go. This will necessitate a greater reliance on unconventional tools like central bank balance sheets, forward guidance, and potentially even negative policy rates.

In this new normal, recessions will tend to be longer and deeper, recoveries slower, and the risks of unacceptably low inflation and the ultimate loss of the nominal anchor will be higher (Reifschneider and Williams 2000). We have already gotten a first taste of the effects of a low r-star, with uncomfortably low inflation and growth despite very low interest rates.

Unfortunately, if the status quo endures, the future is likely to hold more of the same—with the possibility of even more severe challenges to maintaining price and economic stability.

To avoid this fate, central banks and governments should critically reassess the efficacy of their current approaches and carefully consider redesigning economic policy strategies to better cope with a low r-star environment. This includes considering fiscal and other policies aimed at raising the natural interest rate, as well as alternative monetary and fiscal policies that are more likely to succeed in the face of a low natural rate.

Taking each of those in turn, I’ll start with policies aimed at raising r-star by affecting its underlying determinants.

  • One potential avenue is to increase longer-run growth an d prosperity through greater longterm investments in education, public and private capital, and research and development. Despite growing skepticism and endless column inches questioning whether college is worth the cost, the return on investment in post-secondary education is as high as ever (Autor 2014, Daly and Cao 2015). Likewise, returns on infrastructure and research and development investment are very high on average (Jones and Williams 1998, 2000, Fernald 1999).
  • Turning to policies that can help stabilize the economy during a downturn, countercyclical fiscal policy should be our equivalent of a first responder to re cessions, working hand-in-hand with monetary policy. Instead, it has too often been stuck in a stop-and-go cycle, at times complementing monetary policy, at times working against it. This is not unique to the United States; Japan, and Europe have also fallen victim to fiscal consolidation in the midst of an economic downturn or incomplete recovery.

One solution to this problem is to design stronger, more predictable, systematic adjustments of fiscal policy that support the economy during recessions and recoveries (Williams 2009, Elmendorf 2011, 2016). These already exist in the form of programs such as unemployment insurance but are limited in size and scope. Some possible ideas for the United States include Social Security and income tax rates that move up or down in relation to the national unemployment rate, or federal grants to states that operate in the same way. Such approaches could be designed to be revenue-neutral over the business cycle; they also could avoid past debates over fiscal stimulus by separating decisions on countercyclical policy from longer-run decisions about the appropriate role of the government and tax system. Indeed, economists across the political spectrum have championed these ideas (Elmendorf and Furman 2008, Taylor 2000, 2009).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What Did I Get Wrong On Trump?

I didn’t think Trump would win the nomination.  What did I get wrong?

What did I expect?  A wall of Money to coalesce around a single alternative.  Probably Rubio.  Like one of those ugly goal line football plays.  Standing him up and pushing him across the line on mass alone.  Probably at the cost of deep voter dis-enthusiasm.  The result would have been a similar “battle of the unpopular” we’re seeing now, but with a better chance of success for the Republicans as a whole.

What did I get wrong?  I misjudged…

  • …The cohesion of the “money wing” of the party.  Enlightened self-interest should have led to the scenario above.  But they couldn’t coalesce.  Which is the clearest sign of the party’s deep fractures and likely fragmentation.  I under-estimated how fractured things are.
  • …The relative impotence of traditional media.  We all know about traditional media’s declining legitimacy and authenticity, but wow!  Although I should have figured this out.  I can barely stand to track the race except via comedy outlets myself….  Others have made this point better/deeper elsewhere so not going to belabor it.
  • …The Boaty McBoatFace phenomena (the joke name a flash-mob “voted” for a British research ship).  Part of the general “de-legitimization of the elites” problem.  Dis-empowered mobs doing what mobs do when they feel dis-empowered.   This is the clearest (and probably only) useful connection between the Brexit vote and the US election.  This problem is going to be with us for as long as the Internet is.  Its going to be interesting to see how “serious people society” adjust and(eventually, hopefully) cope with this.
  • …When Trump would implode.  I was pretty sure he would.  And his (eventual) disastrous reception by Suburban Republican women was pretty darn obvious.  But the narrative shift happened AFTER the nomination, not before.  I should have called this given media dynamics etc.  But I didn’t.

With that I am going to turn my attention more to other exciting things like Productivity, Fiscal Policy, the Senate Races, what happens after the election, and etc….  The presidential race is pretty done and dusted.  The main risk is that consensus leads to lower turnout by the anti-Trump vote.  But I think the “no Trump at all costs” voters will still turn up in greater numbers than the “I hate Hillary and maybe Trump isn’t really a racist sociopath” voters…  Sigh.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Trump Has Peaked…

Trump has peaked.  Why?  Because he’s not making any new friends; just new enemies.  We’re at that moment of weightlessness at the peak.  Before the slide really begins…  I think it ends in a crushing defeat.  Trump is like a “story” stock.  They run up big.  Whoosh!  They fall big.  Splat!

Remember that Registered Republicans are only 26% of the electorate.  The “crowd” that voted Trump in the Primaries are only a sub-set of that 26%.  The other 74% of the country – undecided/uncomfortable/unsettled – aren’t going to break Trump’s way.

Sure, “Republican leaning” is at 42%.   But how many will pull the lever for Trump?  In particular, watch suburban, college educated Republican women fade away.  They might not vote Hillary, but they just won’t vote.

The election is becoming a referendum on Trump (sorry Hillary).  More on that later.  And the answer isn’t likely to be “Yes.”

The real campaign hasn’t really started.  Most Americans are still tuned out.  Wait for the ad campaigns after the Olympics.  A barrage of ads – “greatest hits of Trump insulting every voting group except white under-educated males.”  Trump has furnished an insult or snide remark for nearly every demographic out there.

The “likely voter” problem will skew polling toward Trump, which will help feed a landslide loss.  An effective ad barrage will drive new registration AND new turnout among the @60%-70% of the American electorate that Trump has alienated.  Republican no-shows will likely spike too.  NEITHER will show up in “likely voters” polls and predictions.  They will show up at the ballot box.  The Democrats’s will be working to make it seem like a close race…   They need the turnout.

The real game is the Senate races.  If Trump skews turnout enough, the Dems win the Senate.  3 Supreme Court Justices and a string of “uncomfortable” Warren/Sanders Senate hearings later, we’re living in a very different country.

We’re even seeing hints of the Democratic “stretch goal” to take the House.  Less likely, but Democratic gains will mostly unseat Republican moderates.  So the House, the only “national” face of the Republican party, will have a higher concentration of the wackiest wackos.  That is a road to ruin…

FYI, I drafted this on Sunday (before recent polls showed Trump tanking).  Really!  🙂

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Trump Will Lose Big. He’s Peaked.

Barring some major “Black Swan” event, Trump will lose and lose big.  That’s a Strong View Not-So-Lightly Held (grin).  What convinced me?  Among other things, see this photo I took Tuesday (after both conventions).

Not a single TRUMP sign...

Not a single TRUMP sign…

Note what isn’t in the window – no TRUMP signs.  In a Michigan county that put the “jerk” in “knee-jerk” Republican.  Prime Trump country.  Plenty of White, no-college voters and a fading manufacturing economy.  If the Republican party here can’t get behind him…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment