Gyroscopic Investing

In short, because everyone is miserable.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americ ... 2015-11-09





People who are unhappy and think things are getting worse don't vote for the standard-bearer of the status quo that represents that misery. Even liberals who like Obama are pessimistic about the future of the country and very few of them have any enthusiasm for Hillary. In this kind of situation, people are more willing than usual to "throw the bums out" and make radical changes. Who's the biggest force for radical change right now? Donald Trump. Who's the Republican frontrunner? Donald Trump. Who has broad support among many demographic groups? Donald Trump. Whose campaign has energy and excitement? Donald Trump's. Who is an experienced actor? Donald Trump.

I see a lot of parallels between 1980 and today in terms of the electoral climate.

I can't believe the staying power he has had throughout this campaign.  I initially thought the excitement would fade, but he's been in the lead for months now.  If Carson ever slips, Trump will get the lion's share of his supporters, so there is some upside room there.  As Fiorina fades, those people will probably tend to go toward Trump.

I see the RNC pushing some of the second tier candidates out soon, so that establishment voters can rally around Rubio. 

I see this coming down to Trump, Rubio, Carson and Cruz.

No one else can seem to get out of the low single digits.  Bush, Huckabee, Christie, Fiorina and Kasich have had plenty of exposure and are still polling too low to factor in.  The rest aren't even worth mentioning. 

Ross Perot is probably pissed.  2016 would have been the year he could have easily won.

In any other cycle, the current crop of Republicans who are leading the field would have been laughed out of the race.

Pointedstick wrote: I see a lot of parallels between 1980 and today in terms of the electoral climate.

But hardly the economic climate.  That is but yet to come...

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I see a lot of parallels between 1980 and today in terms of the electoral climate.

But hardly the economic climate.  That is but yet to come...

Feels a lot more like 1992 to me.

In 1980, the country was in a foul mood, but not nearly ready for a political outsider to be President.

MediumTex wrote: Ross Perot is probably pissed.  2016 would have been the year he could have easily won.

No.  Ross Perot was a paid ringer for the Clintons.  He was promised billions of dollars worth of contracts to EDI.  So just being in the race split the Republican vote guaranteeing a Democratic win and doing his infamous dropout then re-entry over some conspiracy nonsense about people trying to kidnap his daughter at her wedding (or something stupid like that) killed his campaign.  It was all intentional.  This came out long after the fact, of course!

Hence why the Republican Establishment wanted Trump to sign that pledge not to run as a Third Party candidate if he doesn't get nominated.  If they are stupid and nominate the young, naive, sweaty Rubio, I think Trump should do it anyway to teach them a lesson, even though we'll wind up with that Evil Witch.  But hey, it could be A LOT worse than a corrupt sellout Obama II...  like Sanders.

MediumTex wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I see a lot of parallels between 1980 and today in terms of the electoral climate.

But hardly the economic climate.  That is but yet to come...

Feels a lot more like 1992 to me.

In 1980, the country was in a foul mood, but not nearly ready for a political outsider to be President.

An actor/cowboy from Cali doesn't count?

clacy wrote: I can't believe the staying power he has had throughout this campaign.  I initially thought the excitement would fade, but he's been in the lead for months now.  If Carson ever slips, Trump will get the lion's share of his supporters, so there is some upside room there.  As Fiorina fades, those people will probably tend to go toward Trump.

Carson is slipping now.  He apparantely has no emotional self-control against the puerile liberal media attacks about his teenagerhood and non-scholarship scholarship.  Pathetic all around.

moda0306 wrote: An actor/cowboy from Cali doesn't count?

Dude, he was in politics for 33 years before being nominated!  That's a careerist.  And he didn't win so much due to a mood shift as lucky timing (the Thatcher Revolution and all that).  He had lost the previous Presidential nomination to that boring buffoon (Ford?) that eventually lost against that inspid pussy Carter.  Rank and file Republicans tend to elect very boring and safe candidates because rank and file Republicans tend to be very boring and safe themselves.

If Trump does not get nominated...  that's it for the Party without wholesale changes.

MachineGhost wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Ross Perot is probably pissed.  2016 would have been the year he could have easily won.

No.  Ross Perot was a paid ringer for the Clintons.  He was promised billions of dollars worth of contracts to EDI.  So just being in the race split the Republican vote guaranteeing a Democratic win and doing his infamous dropout then re-entry over some conspiracy nonsense about people trying to kidnap his daughter at her wedding (or something stupid like that) killed his campaign.  It was all intentional.  This came out long after the fact, of course!

So you are stating as a fact that Perot's 1992 Presidential campaign was designed specifically to elect Bill Clinton, and Perot winning was never a goal of the campaign?

I think that you can make a case for that theory, but I wouldn't state it as a fact.

PS...very compelling argument you make.

murphy_p_t wrote: PS...very compelling argument you make.

Did Perot admit to this scheme?

If Perot didn't admit to it, what is the support for it, other than the standard "Who benefits?" analysis.

this is why sanders will win

MediumTex wrote: So you are stating as a fact that Perot's 1992 Presidential campaign was designed specifically to elect Bill Clinton, and Perot winning was never a goal of the campaign?

I think that you can make a case for that theory, but I wouldn't state it as a fact.

Yes.  It is a "fact" as in being news reported.  Well, we know the value of that these days, so maybe I'll hedge just a little bit there!

But does it really surprise anyone?  He was a weird little ignorant Smurf obsessed about the Federal debt and NAFTA that just suddenly dropped out at the height of his popularity (I think he had 25% of the vote at the time) over a kooky conspiracy theory, then suddenly came back in the race about a month later.  He never recovered back to his highs.  But he split the Republican vote.  They had absolutely no chance to win the electoral college.  I would do it too if there was billions in government contracts waiting for my corporation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls

MediumTex wrote: Did Perot admit to this scheme?

Beats me.  I did not dig deep enough beyond Hillary's campaign managers revealing it.  It's ancient history at this point and honestly, is anything beyond that Evil Witch?  Go read The Hillary Files thread.  There's way too many dark clouds hanging over her for Hillary to ever be given the benefit of doubt.  No way and no how.