Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Darian,

Arousal is not a word I would have chosen; let's just go with provoked, shall we? Seriously though, Darian, have you seen head-to-head state polls lately? It is not looking good for Trump at all. Granted, it's early, the only poll that matters is the one in November, and so forth and so on, but they are hard to ignore. In FL, Biden is +3; in TX, it's a tie; in MI, Biden is +8; in MN Biden is +12; NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, VA all perennial swing states tell the same story. You can ignore it and poo-poo it all you want, but these numbers are awful for Trump.

Hi James:

But the betting markets have Trump up +8.  I am having trouble getting my head around that!  I think that last election showed that Trump is very hard to poll accurately.  As you noted too, it is so early as to be meaningless.  I recall that Hillary was up tons in the battlegrounds in the spring of '16, although we had not realized which states would be the battlegrounds at that point.  

The Texas polling you mentioned seems to be a recurring thing too.  "Texas is turning blue" articles and so on, but come election day... 

I'm not disputing your analysis of course.  You obviously can read a poll as well as anyone.  I think we agree that election predictions are just tavern banter between forum participants at this point in time.

One thing is certain, (I believe).  Trump and Biden's performances between now and election day will matter with those persuadable voters in the swing states.  That alone should be enough to terrify partisans of either variety!

Jim

Originally Posted by Darian Rachal

As pathetic as Clinton was, she seemed to be a notch above Biden.

Hi Darian:

I disagree with the above.  I believe that Hillary Clinton was significantly more corrupt than the average candidate for president.  Biden may be "handsy" and he almost certainly has a grifter son who is willing to trade on the family name, but I don't think that he is all that corrupt.

Personally, I voted against Clinton last go-round.  I am a persuadable voter.  I imagine there are enough people like me to swing the election in key states.  People who are generally straight-ticket Republicans who find Trump to be an irredeemable and incompetent embarrassment who is entirely unsuited to the job.  If Biden runs a credible campaign between now and November, I expect him to win easily.  Of course, I was wrong last time!

Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Darian:

I disagree with the above.  I believe that Hillary Clinton was significantly more corrupt than the average candidate for president.  Biden may be "handsy" and he almost certainly has a grifter son who is willing to trade on the family name, but I don't think that he is all that corrupt.

Personally, I voted against Clinton last go-round.  I am a persuadable voter.  I imagine there are enough people like me to swing the election in key states.  People who are generally straight-ticket Republicans who find Trump to be an irredeemable and incompetent embarrassment who is entirely unsuited to the job.  If Biden runs a credible campaign between now and November, I expect him to win easily.  Of course, I was wrong last time!

Jim

Just to be complete; if Biden makes a fool of himself in the debates or otherwise, I expect Trump to win easily.  Not because Trump will attract D voters, but because enough D's will stay home in despair.

J

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Hi Jim,

The betting markets are not a representative sample of registered voters. I have always assumed that this must have something to do with their famous misfires. My take is pretty simple. Trump barely won in 2016. Despite what he or his supporters want to believe, he won by 70,000 votes in three rust-belt states. His electoral win ranks 46th out of 58. His election was a statistical anomaly, and betting on losing the popular vote again and winning the electoral college is not a winning strategy. Trump faces all the same opposition he had in 2016 and then some. He's deeply unpopular even in his party, and significant factions of his party are working hard to see him defeated. Trump has done little to persuade swing voters to his side. If anything, he has driven away more minority and women voters, and he certainly has not made any inroads with traditional democrats or progressives. To top it all of, he has lost the only bulwark he had, the economy.

Additionally, the pandemic crisis has laid bare his inability to lead and unite. You can't gaslight a virus or sharpie it out of existence. This crisis is not going to end on Trump's timeline. In November, we are going to be closing in on 160,00 deaths or more. We are already nearly twice what some on this forum thought they would ever see. I'll eat crow when the time comes if necessary, but Trump is going to lose and lose historically.

I agree with 99% of this, but I am not so sure about Trump losing.  I think you are underestimating two things.  (1)  Biden's ability to implode, and (2) The economy.  I recognize that this is cold-blooded, but 160,000 dead is not that bad, given what most folks believe might have happened.  If the re-opening of the country proceeds as I hope it does, and if the economy responds, Trump will get some credit from those who are persuadable.

I think the race is a 60/40 near-tossup as of now, favoring Biden.  Lot of time between now and November for sure. Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Biden's ability to implode". The latter reminds me of the numerous posts in this forum that had written off Joe Biden as a goner. It was a done deal, a fact recorded in the history books in the minds of the posters in the forum. The only thing that imploded was the latter... 
The economy? A good number of those lost jobs are never coming back. Neither are the retailers who have or are about to declare bankruptcy. The cruise lines and various air carriers are pretty much in the same category. The oil sector? Maybe but iffy at best by November...

We'll see how Biden does.  Like I mentioned a few posts ago, if he runs a credible campaign I expect him to win easily.  So, we'll see whether implosion is a "thing" or not.  In my view Rod, if Biden is actually implosion proof, then you have nothing at all to worry about in November.  Do you find that comforting?  




Never coming back?  Seriously?  

Specific jobs may not come back, some restaurants will close for example.  But others will take their place.  Or do you really think that this pandemic has changed the US citizen's apatite for eating out, travel, air travel, recreation and so on?  I'm pretty sure the demand is there, and it will be supplied.  Even in California.  Basic economics.  

Yes, Pan-Am and TWA are gone.  Have been for decades.  That's why we have South West.  The economy abhors a vacuum.  The only question is when the jobs come back, and whether we lose something valuable in the transition.  Something valuable like less mom-and-pop restaurants and more chains.  Of course that particular transition has been going on for decades, but you know what I am getting at.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Indeed a lot hinges on what the economy does.

Another thing that this pandemic crisis has revealed is how dependent our economy is on two things 1) the service and hospitality industries, and 2) the ability of the working class and middle class to be able to go out and spend money. Trickle-down economics is not going to save us, and neither is billionaires creating jobs or wealth. Until the majority of people are comfortable returning to air travel, dining out, vacationing, and until schools, sporting arenas, and dance halls and bars reopen, the economy is going to remain stalled.

The national economy will not recover without a nation-wide test, trace, and isolate program, and right now, it's abundantly clear there is no plan for this at the federal level. Certain regions and states may be successful, but nationally it will be a patchwork quilt menagerie of success and failure.

No vaccine on the horizon is going to save us either. Even under the best of circumstances, we might see a vaccine in 1.5 to 2 years. And when it does become available, it will be even longer before it's rolled out to the masses. And let's hope that the US is the one to develop it, because right now I don't think other nations are going to be feeling particularly charitable towards the US. The New York Times has a good and realistic article on the prospects of a vaccine. It's not a rosy picture.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coronavirus-covid-vaccine.html

Sorry for my lack of positive outlook Jim. Maybe I am just destined to be the foil to your optimism.

Well, you can be forgiven for not having a positive outlook.  Times are tough.  If the pudding really hits the fan, and the second wave pushes us into a great depression scale economic melt down I will have once again been proven tragically wrong.

Nonetheless, I see you back at your desk in a month or three, assuming you want to go of course!  

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

No it's not ALL Trump's fault and again, he takes all the credit when things are going well and NONE of the responsibility when it isn't... 

RCP has some interesting poll analysis that is relevant here.  Most folks approve of what their state and governor are doing, and disapprove of the federal response to the pandemic.  It is horribly skewed by party.  Still, maybe lots of us are federalists at heart?

Jim


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/real_clear_opinion_research/viewing_the_election_through_a_pandemic_prism.html


p.s.  This polling data supports a lot of what James has been posting.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

 I'm honestly not sure what you expect Democratic voters to do at this point, other than do what Republican voters did in 2016.

I expect Democrats to vote for the Democrat.  Since my faith is in the system, not in any particular person, I think that is generally the proper tactic, even if your party's candidate is not your particular cup of tea.    

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

China deserves "some" blame? Is there a way I can say that is your weakest post without being a jerk? I am being sincere. My apologies.

Hi Mel:

If that is James' "weakest post" I would read your reply as a pretty robust compliment!

I try not to get deep into the blame game under these circumstances, it is always true in retrospect that many decisions can be second guessed.  I think the overall response of the state and federal governments has been pretty good, given that the national health care system was not overwhelmed, and it sure could have been.

I do enjoy observing how blame is doled out.  The press blames Trump, but not Cuomo for the disaster in NY.  Or the press accuses Gov. Kemp of rolling the dice with citizen's lives, but gives Gov.  Polis a pass.  That sort of thing. 

Jim

We are in a transitional phase for the pandemic and this thread.  As demonstrated below, the USA (and most every other country) effectively flattened the curve with the social distancing, stay at home orders and other mitigation efforts implemented in March.  These new graphs from Worldometer show what a flattened curve looks like.  Good for us.

Now, several states are cautiously reopening the economy.  Reopening is occuring cautiously and with local expert advice.  This phase is the "Dance" portion of the now world famous "Coronavirus: Why You Must Act Now" and  "Hammer and the Dance" articles that Russ and David posted here so many weeks ago.  As an aside, the "Hammer" portion or societies response was predicted to last about 3-7 weeks.  In this instance, the author nailed it.   https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

It bothers me that the NY based press, literally blinded by partisanship to the data in the rest of the country, continue their daily assault on the states that are reopening.  At least those states with R governors.  See, for example:    https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/05/opinions/opening-america-ludicrous-opinion-filipovic/index.html

Even so, there is a real risk that a second wave will result from relaxed mitigation.  Starting now, I'll be posting charts from Colorado, Georgia, and Texas to see what second wave we experience, if any.  I am looking at these states because we are re-opening, we have A-marters who post in "politics" living there, and these states have decent charts on their public health web pages.

But first, the flattened curves:

Jim