Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Latest poll in the critical swing state of Penn: Trump 50%/Harris 50%.

The pope's "brilliant" assessment of the presidential race:  "voters must choose between ‘lesser of two evils".

Are you kidding me?! What, he can't tell the difference between a psychopath and convicted felon who cares only about himself and a democratic politician who's position on abortion isn't one that he personally doesn"t like?

"Pope Francis on Friday described the choice US voters must make in the presidential election as one between the “lesser of two evils,” deeming former President Donald Trump’s anti-migrant policies and Vice President Kamala Harris’ support of abortion rights as both being “against life.”

"Francis has criticized couples who choose to have pets rather than children, aligning with views expressed by Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance, a converted Catholic who has derided women without kids as “childless cat ladies” and described those in the country’s “leadership class” who don’t have children as “more sociopathic.”

"US Catholics also have a range of views. According to Pew Research, 52% of Catholic registered voters describe themselves as being or leaning Republican, while 44% say they are or lean Democrat."

"Catholic voters were split in 2020, with 50% voting for Biden and 49% supporting Trump, according to Pew. But a majority of Catholics – 61% – believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases."


https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/pope-francis-trump-harris-abortion/index.html


I don't know why Jim Brown stated he's feeling "less pessimistic" about Harris' chances now...

Just a feeling that she will have the momentum for a very close win.  Somehow she needs to put some distance between herself and Biden.  Platitudes are not going to get it done.

On the other hand, Trump is still up in enough swing states that Nate Silver's model has the race at 60% Trump 40% Harris as of this morning.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Trump is still up in enough swing states that Nate Silver's model has the race at 60% Trump 40% Harris as of this morning."

Hmm, that's depressing although I do find the swing states currently favoring Harris on TheRealClearPolitics website.

Whoever wins PA is likely to win the election.   On Real Clear, PA is literally 50/50.   Silver's model is based upon national polls, swing state polls, and economic data, so it is designed to react more slowly to the most recent polling data than the RCP averages would.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

“I can’t believe we’re having this conversation again. So here we go. You know who the candidates are,” Elliott says in the video, as a photo of a serene American landscape transitioned to a depiction of an American farmer walking down a dirt path between his crops."

“You know what’s at stake,” Elliott says. “One candidate promises a divided America filled with lies and hate, and one stands for change. Kamala Harris has more courage, more honor, more guts than this guy ever had."

“So you decide: Are we really going back down that same f‑‑‑ing broken road? Or are we moving forward towards hope, towards freedom, towards change?”


https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/4896472-sam-elliott-endorses-harris/

Pretty powerful commercial, but it only appeals to emotion.  I sure would like to see Harris lay out some specifics on what she'll do differently than Biden, versus the tired platitudes of, "moving forward towards hope, towards freedom, towards change."

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Here's the Harris platform proposals on issues:

https://kamalaharris.com/issues/

They don't mirror those of Biden and, thankfully, not Trump.

That said, other than threatening 200% tariffs that will invariably lead to higher costs for consumers and a downturn in the economy if not outright recession, what the hell has Trump said he's supposedly going to do for the middle class? 

People forget that prices dropped under Trump because of the pandemic and not because of anything he did (other than for corporate CEOs). For example, gas prices were less because less people were driving then. Food prices were down because of the decrease in store traffic and an increase of selected home delivery essential foodstuffs. 

We pump more oil now than we ever did under Trump but that hasn't stopped the gas prices from being jacked up under the slightest pretense to do so.

I,like the folks at Goldman Sachs, think the economy will take a hit under Trump:   https://thehill.com/business/4861677-goldman-sachs-trump-impact/

I do expect Trump to win and I'm talking to the financial institutions I do business with to take a more defensive posture in the upcoming years. How about you?...

I've looked at Harris's policy page a couple times now.  Seems pretty light on substance and high on platitudes.  I also don't think the whole "new way forward" thing works for her.  She has not really distanced herself from Biden, and I believe she has not because she can not.

The race is polling as close to 50/50 as can be.  One of three things is likely to come to pass in my opinion:  1.  The pollsters are under polling Trump like they did in '16 and '20.  In that case Trump wins easily.   2.  The pollsters have overcompensated for their under polling of Trump in the past, in which case Harris wins with about the same or slightly better margins than Biden.  3.  The pollsters are correct.   In that case it is going to nearly be a tie in the EC, with a few votes in a few states determining the next president.  It will be ugly.

Either way, I am not planning on changing my long term investment strategies.  (I could post another link to Paul Krugman's legendary "The market will never recover" opinion piece from November 2016, but why bother?  We all know the markets have skyrocketed since he wrote that drivel.  My faith is in the system, and my investment strategy does not change no matter who is in the White House.  (By the way, my liquid asset investment strategy is almost entirely buy low cost index funds and hold for the long term.)

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

" (By the way, my liquid asset investment strategy is almost entirely buy low cost index funds and hold for the long term.)"

A smart way to go but I hate the idea of having to rideout another Trump recession.

The market did really well the last time Trump was president.  It did really well when Biden was president too.   This is a testament to the system, not to the person in the oval office.  

https://www.macrotrends.net/2488/sp500-10-year-daily-chart

Did anyone else watch the VP debate?  

I thought Vance did pretty good, except where he dodged the Jan 6 question.  Much more of a sharp, empathetic, coherent human being than the press would have you believe.   So, I guess getting to know Vance a bit is a win for the Trump campaign.  

I thought Walz did fine too, although he flubbed the Tiananmen answer, and he did a poor job of advancing the ubiquitous but hopelessly unpersuasive Harris campaign message of Trump being the "incumbent" and Harris being the "candidate of change".

Given that Vance was humanized compared to the expectations set by Harris and the press, and given that he sorta effectively pinned the Biden years on Harris, without much push back from Walz, I would say Vance won, but it was not a wipe out by any means and I am sure it will not matter.

My own opinion makes me wonder why the left seems so upset, as if Walz dropped the ball immensely.   The CNN panel was pretty glum right after the debate, and there are articles like this indicating Walz completely failed in his mission:  

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/tim-walz-jd-vance-vice-presidential-debate-b1185413.html

"Kamala Harris’s running mate could have pummeled JD Vance for being a mean, small-minded, misogynistic flip-flopper whose sole guiding principle was to suck up to Donald Trump. Instead, he came to praise rather than to bury his opponent."

I suppose if one really truly believes Vance is a mean, small-minded, misogynistic flip-flopper whose sole guiding principle is to suck up to Donald Trump then Walz did fail.  Walz certainly did not expose Vance as a mean, small-minded, misogynistic flip-flopper whose sole guiding principle is to suck up to Donald Trump.   Was this really Walz's mission?  If so, it was an impossible task because there is a lot more to Vance than the simplistic and hateful media portrayals will ever admit.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

I think that’s a little disingenuous. I suspect people think Vance is a mean, small-minded, misogynistic flip-flopper whose sole guiding principle is to suck up to Donald Trump because of the things he says, not because the media reports it.

I mean, come on – Haitians eating cats, childless cat ladies, teachers should have children, Biden may try to kill Trump supporters with fentanyl, people leave their marriages due to violence is a trick of the sexual revolution (seriously?), if Trump were to become president in 2024 he should “fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.”, people with children deserve extra votes, the 20020 election was stolen, and on and on. These are all things that he said.

Yeah, he’s a great guy!

Hi Brian:

It is fruitless to try to hold politicians to a carefully curated subset of the things they say.  Apply that standard to Ms. Harris, and you get a anti-fracking, green new deal supporting, gun grabber.  Apply that standard to Walz and you have a serial liar who can not be trusted with anything.

Also, I don't think actual people outside of self-imposed left wing media junkies think Vance is a mean, small-minded, misogynistic flip-flopper whose sole guiding principle is to suck up to Donald Trump.  I believe the press can cherry pick quotes to paint anyone as an ogre.  The right does it too.  Are any of these people as evil or inept as portrayed in the opposite press?  Maybe Trump is, but we have a long track record with him.  I do not believe Harris, Walz, or Vance actually match the caricatures.   It's not even close.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"According to the CBS poll, 42 percent of debate watchers say Vance, a Yale-trained lawyer, won the debate. That narrowly outpaced Walz, who 41 percent of viewers said was victorious. About 17 percent said it was a tie."

"Nearly all, 88 percent, of those that watched the debate said the Vance-Walz face-off was generally positive, while 12 percent said it was generally negative, the survey showed."

"While many said Vance performed well, he didn’t emerge with more favorable views. Debate watchers came away with relatively neutral views of the first-term Ohio senator, with 41 percent rating him favorably and 44 percent unfavorably, according to the CNN survey."

"Walz, Vice President Harris’s running mate, came away with a higher favorability rating. After the debate, 59 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the North Star State governor, which is up from 46 percent before the forum. He gained most support among women, the postdebate poll noted."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4911257-jd-vance-tim-waz-vp-post-debate-polls/

Looks like it's a toss up as to "won" the debate...

I would agree that it was close to a toss up.  That is not how the press reacted last night though, or in the first articles this morning.  This puzzles me, and is the main point of my post.   Did you happen to read the opinion piece from the left winger I posted?  She did not think it was a toss up.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

I think you're a little fixated on media bias. Sure, it exists. Don't listen to it.  Listen to what these candidates actually say.  Vance claims Haitians are eating pets, and then doubles down on it after it's proven to be total fiction.

Unfit, just like his orange boss.

We all have biases.  Last night Vance said a lot of very reasonable and empathetic things.  Do you totally discount his reasonable and empathetic words?  Why, other than your own biases?  (I agree that the eating pets comments were totally stupid, Vance did not go there last night.  Trump started on about eating pets in his debate, something he saw on line or on Twitter I think he said.  I think Vance must cringe when he has to support the top of the ticket spouting nonsense like that.)  

I am curious if you think Walz and Harris are as pro-energy production/fracking, pro border-security, and as pro-gun ownership as they are positioning themselves to be?  I do not think they are.  I think they are telling political lies for politically expedient reasons, based upon their past positions, statements, and actions.  This is not disqualifying in my opinion.  Political lies for political expediency is as old as politics.

I'll be out the rest of the day, but this is interesting and I appreciate your comments.  Jim

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

I think you're a little fixated on media bias. Sure, it exists. Don't listen to it.  Listen to what these candidates actually say.  Vance claims Haitians are eating pets, and then doubles down on it after it's proven to be total fiction.

Unfit, just like his orange boss.

Last comment for now.  Do you agree with the left wing opinion writer I posted who thinks Walz totally dropped the ball?   I do not and her opinion, plus some of what I saw on CNN last night really puzzles me.