Gyroscopic Investing

Anyone catch the debate last night? Man, what a snoozer. CBS ended the dang thing 8 minutes early! Same old, same old from the Democrats. More taxes on the rich. More welfare programs. Obamacare is great but we still need to give the government even more power over health care because clearly it doesn't go far enough. Borders, schmorders. Guns are bad and the companies that make them are bad. Hesitancy to utter the words "radical Islam" in favor of "radical jihadism" (Jihad is central to which religion again…?).

Sanders and O'Malley got some good digs against Clinton but for the most part it was just constant agreement from the three of them about 99% of everything constituting the far-left orthodoxy. I don't see how Clinton can possibly win against Trump without awkwardly ditching nearly all of this far-left rhetoric in the general election, because he's going to come out firing both populist barrels and decimate her.

It's like there are two countries--a Democratic one and a Republican one.

The idea of there being a candidate that all of American can feel reasonably good about seems more and more remote.  I think that Reagan was the last one who really united the country.

It doesn't look like we are in any danger of nominating a uniter this time around.

Hillary will run very strong against any of the Republican leaders.

I don't think anyone here is going to like hearing this, but I think that the only two Republicans who can beat Hillary are Kasich and Rubio.  If we agree that Kasich is out based on his performancce at the last debate, then that means that the choice may be between Rubio and Clinton, which IMHO isn't much of a choice.

I think Hillary destroys Rubio. Rubio is an empty suit who gives a good speech, nothing more. An eloquent young lightweight political newcomer beat Hillary the last time, but by now it's a battle she knows how to win. She'll make mincemeat out of him.

Just wait. Trump will wipe the floor with Hillary. He knows how to control a media industry that is already wary of and slightly hostile to Hillary Clinton. His self-funded campaign, sub-$200 donor base, and lack of SuperPACs allow him to adopt Bernie Sanders' anti-plutocrat populist message which is hugely resonant with independents and moderate Democrats. He embodies and captures the cultural zeitgeist of the country needing change and new management to stave off economic decline. He dominates among men but does not turn off women. He is the Republican frontrunner and has polled well against Hillary for months. I see him cruising to victory.

Well according to Hillary she saved Wall Street after 9/11 so... wait, what?

Pointedstick wrote: I think Hillary destroys Rubio. Rubio is an empty suit who gives a good speech, nothing more. An eloquent young lightweight political newcomer beat Hillary the last time, but by now it's a battle she knows how to win. She'll make mincemeat out of him.

What makes you think she knows how to win the battle now against a charismatic opponent?

Hillary knows nothing about charisma.

Just wait. Trump will wipe the floor with Hillary. He knows how to control a media industry that is already wary of and slightly hostile to Hillary Clinton. His self-funded campaign, sub-$200 donor base, and lack of SuperPACs allow him to adopt Bernie Sanders' anti-plutocrat populist message which is hugely resonant with independents and moderate Democrats. He embodies and captures the cultural zeitgeist of the country needing change and new management to stave off economic decline. He dominates among men but does not turn off women. He is the Republican frontrunner and has polled well against Hillary for months. I see him cruising to victory.

When you dig down into what it takes a Republican to win in swing states, the candidate has to grab a lot of Hispanic votes.  I'm not confident that Trump can grab those votes if Romney couldn't last time around.  Rubio can.

I think that Rubio is a total lightweight, but I still think that he would run strong against Clinton.

Rubio would probably pick up more hispanics than Trump. But I think Trump would absolutely pick up more independents, moderates, blue-collar Democrats, and conservative blacks, with all of whom Rubio has no special competence or advantage.

Hillary is not very charismatic, but at this point she is able to paint a fairly accurate picture of herself as seasoned and experienced. She's time and battle tested. Hillary Clinton has been getting attacked by her opponents for a quarter century and has survived and thrived in that environment to the point where now she is almost effortlessly considered the frontrunner for her party's nomination to the presidency. Rubio, by contrast, has no real experience, has never been particularly tested at anything, and gets prickly when any of these things are brought up in a way that the media has a broad history of being able to exploit. Rubio has no real defense against the "inexperience" line of attack and I suspect it would prove fatal, especially after we just got done with eight years of a disappointing politically inexperienced newcomer. It's not the right political climate for an young optimistic inexperienced newcomer the way it was in 2008.

With Trump, however, this is an advantage. Trump has no political experience, but his prodigious, lifelong business experience neutralizes the potential advantages of Clinton's political career and even eclipses it in this era of disgust with politicians. We don't care that he's never been a politician because we remember that we hate politicians and we can appreciate his business experience. He is the only candidate to whom political inexperience is actually an advantage--and a needed one when facing off against a politically experienced opponent during a time when everybody is sick of politicians.

Pointedstick wrote: I think Hillary destroys Rubio. Rubio is an empty suit who gives a good speech, nothing more. An eloquent young lightweight political newcomer beat Hillary the last time, but by now it's a battle she knows how to win. She'll make mincemeat out of him.

Just wait. Trump will wipe the floor with Hillary. He knows how to control a media industry that is already wary of and slightly hostile to Hillary Clinton. His self-funded campaign, sub-$200 donor base, and lack of SuperPACs allow him to adopt Bernie Sanders' anti-plutocrat populist message which is hugely resonant with independents and moderate Democrats. He embodies and captures the cultural zeitgeist of the country needing change and new management to stave off economic decline. He dominates among men but does not turn off women. He is the Republican frontrunner and has polled well against Hillary for months. I see him cruising to victory.

Au contraire. Recent polling has shown Hillary beating Trump handily while losing to Carson and Rubio. I'll tell you, Carson is really flying under the radar (sorry for the air traffic term) even with the recent much ado about nothing attempts to link him to his thoughts and actions as a mere youth. And Rubio could be a new age JFK compared to Hillary's hideous cackles and corruption proving evasiveness.

Polls be damned; I cannot see any electable Republican contender.  Get ready for HillBill.
Groan.

Simonjester wrote: its an unpredictable element, but if the GOP puts another McCain, mitt Romney, Rubio, Jeb bush, etc etc etc.. up as the candidate there may very well be a tea party / true conservative / libertarian / republican, simultaneous shoulder shrug "why bother" moment, and none of them show up to vote, (a gut feeling based on how i will react to yet another progressive neocon puppet candidate..)

Rand Paul would eviscerate Hitlary in debate, as she has no actual answers to any questions.
He would also get votes from independents and possibly even some anti-war Democrats. She would get votes from no Republicans and very few independents.

She is also driving men away in droves, which she actually bragged about in the debate ("60% of my contributions are from women!"). The harder she drives to the left on the extreme feminist bandwagon, the more men she loses. It is a perplexingly stupid strategy.

http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-s ... 08069.html

Clinton is seen more negatively than positively among men by an 18-point margin, 39-57 percent favorable-unfavorable; she’s +8 among women, 53-45 percent, for a 26-point gender gap. Sanders is -4 among men and +7 among women, a gender gap that’s less than half Clinton’s (but one that’s widened since summer – better for Sanders among women, worse among men).

http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/81040/ ... ?mref=NJFB

The latest round of polling for Clin­ton is bru­tal. This week’s NBC News/Wall Street Journ­al/Mar­ist sur­vey in Iowa shows her fa­vor­ab­il­ity rat­ing with men at a mere 27 per­cent, while two-thirds view her un­fa­vor­ably. Her minus-39 net fa­vor­ab­il­ity with men is 28 points worse than Vice President Joe Biden and 27 points be­hind Sen. Bernie Sanders. The story is the same in New Hampshire, where the NBC/WSJ/Mar­ist poll found both Sanders and Biden with net-pos­it­ive rat­ings, while Clin­ton’s approv­al is deeply un­der­wa­ter, stuck at 30 per­cent.

etc.

I dunno PS.  My track record of picking winners goes way back.  I'm the Mathjak of presidential predictions!

Hillary is a shoe-in.

Trump will repel too many people.  Eventually one of the others will emerge as the tallest midget. 

It's probably no coincidence that in presidential election years I start thinking about emigrating, lol.

I Shrugged wrote: I dunno PS.  My track record of picking winners goes way back.  I'm the Mathjak of presidential predictions!

Hillary is a shoe-in.

Trump will repel too many people.  Eventually one of the others will emerge as the tallest midget. 

It's probably no coincidence that in presidential election years I start thinking about emigrating, lol.

Let's hope your streak of picking winners stops before 2016.  Yikes if you are correct.  Let's further hope that some worthy oponent to Billary gathers widespread public support soon ... a Jesse Ventura of the GOP?   

... M

Mountaineer wrote:

I Shrugged wrote: I dunno PS.  My track record of picking winners goes way back.  I'm the Mathjak of presidential predictions!

Hillary is a shoe-in.

Trump will repel too many people.  Eventually one of the others will emerge as the tallest midget. 

It's probably no coincidence that in presidential election years I start thinking about emigrating, lol.

Let's hope your streak of picking winners stops before 2016.  Yikes if you are correct.  Let's further hope that some worthy oponent to Billary gathers widespread public support soon ... a Jesse Ventura of the GOP?   

... M

There's a rumor circulating that Jim Webb will make a third-party run in the next couple months, for what that's worth.  Webb was the only candidate on the Democrat side whom I could personally relate to, hence I sent the campaign a small amount of money and now have a bumper sticker with a tired slogan: "Jim Webb 2016 - Leadership You Can Trust".  I might just put it on the truck so people in traffic can scratch their heads.

The Republican race, on the other hand, is a basket case, though I do believe that what Trump is saying about the border and deportations is long overdue.  Trump just doesn't seem trustworthy, however; A penthouse-dwelling megalomaniac is hardly likely to be a reliable protectionist or nationalist.  His views are too convenient as well; he appears to be dredging the comment boards on Breitbart or other AltCon social media and directly repackaging the popular angst as his long held convictions.  Given that many of the commenters on alternative conservative media are Gen-X or Millennial, such "mining" of positions is likely to be very effective with younger voters, myself included.  Trump might turn out to be the first "e-populist" (to coin a term) and subsequent elections may see more politicians mining forums for positions and responses rather than focus group testing as today.  Again, it will take more than a trucker hat and unbuttoning one's OCBD to add an appearance of conviction to Trump's professed stances.

In the end I'll probably write in the Constitution Party or Independent American Party candidate while the rest of the nation votes for "the lesser of two evils"---and immediately regrets their decision---like so many elections before.

MediumTex wrote: I don't think anyone here is going to like hearing this, but I think that the only two Republicans who can beat Hillary are Kasich and Rubio.  If we agree that Kasich is out based on his performancce at the last debate, then that means that the choice may be between Rubio and Clinton, which IMHO isn't much of a choice.

And Trump.  He has real world experience that neither Clinton nor Rubio have.

Pointedstick wrote: He is the Republican frontrunner and has polled well against Hillary for months. I see him cruising to victory.

Polls are not reliable.  I see problems with the Republican Establishment who does not like and does not want to nominate Trump.

Trump may have to split and start a third party.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: He is the Republican frontrunner and has polled well against Hillary for months. I see him cruising to victory.

Polls are not reliable.  I see problems with the Republican Establishment who does not like and does not want to nominate Trump.

Trump may have to split and start a third party.

That's what Mitt Romney's pollsters all said…

Individual polls are not reliable. In the aggregate, polls are very reliable.

MediumTex wrote: When you dig down into what it takes a Republican to win in swing states, the candidate has to grab a lot of Hispanic votes.  I'm not confident that Trump can grab those votes if Romney couldn't last time around.  Rubio can.

I think that Rubio is a total lightweight, but I still think that he would run strong against Clinton.

That's a good point.  All of those former red states (Colorado and New Mexico comes to mind) are now largely Hispanic due to legal and illegal immigration.  Rubio could peel off enough to get the electoral points.

Pointedstick wrote: With Trump, however, this is an advantage. Trump has no political experience, but his prodigious, lifelong business experience neutralizes the potential advantages of Clinton's political career and even eclipses it in this era of disgust with politicians. We don't care that he's never been a politician because we remember that we hate politicians and we can appreciate his business experience. He is the only candidate to whom political inexperience is actually an advantage--and a needed one when facing off against a politically experienced opponent during a time when everybody is sick of politicians.

You can't have it both ways.  Both Trump and Rubio are politically inexperienced and that is appealing.  Why should there be a double standard for a politician and a non-politician?

Now, if Rubio can actually stand up to Clinton in a debate, that's not a bet I'm willing to make one way or the other at the moment.

MachineGhost wrote:

MediumTex wrote: When you dig down into what it takes a Republican to win in swing states, the candidate has to grab a lot of Hispanic votes.  I'm not confident that Trump can grab those votes if Romney couldn't last time around.  Rubio can.

I think that Rubio is a total lightweight, but I still think that he would run strong against Clinton.

That's a good point.  All of those former red states (Colorado and New Mexico comes to mind) are now largely Hispanic due to legal and illegal immigration.  Rubio could peel off enough to get the electoral points.

The two you cited don't follow that trend at all. Colorado turned blue because of internal migration of coastal liberals, and New Mexico is not at all a "former red state." The state has a Republican governor, Republican control of half the legislature, voted for Bush in 2004, and was evenly split in 2000. There has been relatively little immigration legal or otherwise to New Mexico. There aren't enough jobs for people to want to come! If anything, New Mexico is a swing state… a completely irrelevant swing state with only 5 electoral votes!

Libertarian666 wrote: Rand Paul would eviscerate Hitlary in debate, as she has no actual answers to any questions.
He would also get votes from independents and possibly even some anti-war Democrats. She would get votes from no Republicans and very few independents.

Paul would not even remotely win the electoral college.  We don't have a nation of ideologue libertarians acting as electors.  Popularity is irrelevant.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: With Trump, however, this is an advantage. Trump has no political experience, but his prodigious, lifelong business experience neutralizes the potential advantages of Clinton's political career and even eclipses it in this era of disgust with politicians. We don't care that he's never been a politician because we remember that we hate politicians and we can appreciate his business experience. He is the only candidate to whom political inexperience is actually an advantage--and a needed one when facing off against a politically experienced opponent during a time when everybody is sick of politicians.

You can't have it both ways.  Both Trump and Rubio are politically inexperienced and that is appealing.  Why should there be a double standard for a politician and a non-politician?

Of course I can! The conservative zeitgeist favors someone who is politically inexperienced but full of outside, real-world experience. Look at the top four candidates: Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Rubio. Between them they have a grand total of 8 years of federal government experience. 3 for Cruz and 5 for Rubio. The most politically experienced candidates are all at the bottom. This is not a climate that favors seasoned, experienced politicians.

Pointedstick wrote: The latest round of polling for Clin­ton is bru­tal. This week’s NBC News/Wall Street Journ­al/Mar­ist sur­vey in Iowa shows her fa­vor­ab­il­ity rat­ing with men at a mere 27 per­cent, while two-thirds view her un­fa­vor­ably. Her minus-39 net fa­vor­ab­il­ity with men is 28 points worse than Vice President Joe Biden and 27 points be­hind Sen. Bernie Sanders. The story is the same in New Hampshire, where the NBC/WSJ/Mar­ist poll found both Sanders and Biden with net-pos­it­ive rat­ings, while Clin­ton’s approv­al is deeply un­der­wa­ter, stuck at 30 per­cent.

Sex ratios

    at birth: 1.048 male(s)/female
    under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
    15–64 years: 1 male(s)/female
    65 years and over: 0.75 male(s)/female
    total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2010 est.)

Pointedstick wrote: Individual polls are not reliable. In the aggregate, polls are very reliable.

Averaging together dogshit does not make a tasty chocolate cake, just super smelly dogshit.  I prefer to listen to the prediction markets instead of piehole flapping.  Prediction markets current say Rubio will be the nominee with Trump a distant second.  The only thing that can change this is a Black Swan.

Pointedstick wrote: The two you cited don't follow that trend at all. Colorado turned blue because of internal migration of coastal liberals, and New Mexico is not at all a "former red state." The state has a Republican governor, Republican control of half the legislature, voted for Bush in 2004, and was evenly split in 2000. There has been relatively little immigration legal or otherwise to New Mexico. There aren't enough jobs for people to want to come! If anything, New Mexico is a swing state… a completely irrelevant swing state with only 5 electoral votes!

Sorry, I meant Nevada!  Hispanics are "coastal liberals" though they're certainly not middle or upper class in large numbers yet.

MachineGhost wrote: You can't have it both ways.  Both Trump and Rubio are politically inexperienced and that is appealing.  Why should there be a double standard for a politician and a non-politician?

Politically inexperienced is not the same as generally inexperienced.  Trump has infinitely greater negotiating experience than Rubio, and it will likely not take long for him to figure out the system on Capitol Hill - and like as not, he will find ways to take advantage that no one thought of before.  Rubio's experience is limited to a few not terribly productive years in the Senate and (presumably) listening to his father talk about Cuba.

The biggest problem I see with Trump is his tendency to oversimplify issues - but I doubt this will make him any less electable.  This was precisely Ronald Reagan's M.O..  Among other things, Reagan once said that a lilac bush would be enough to protect you from a nuclear warhead, and that trees emit some chemical that is similar to carbon dioxide (the "trees cause pollution" comment).

If Trump is derailed, I expect it will be either the Republican establishment unwilling to let him into the inner sanctum, or the media's relentless campaign against him.