Election 2020

Trump's 2020 Odds, and the Libertarian Party's

Win or lose, libertarians will remind Americans about basic principles we have in common.

|

President Trump is up 3 percent!

I refer to the betting odds. Gamblers (mostly in Europe because political bets are legal there) now give the president a 53 percent chance of finishing his first term.

That's it—they barely think he'll complete four years. This must seem wrong to Trump supporters, but when Trump won the presidency, the odds were significantly lower—many people thought he wouldn't finish one term.

"He can't take the criticism! He'll get mad and quit! He'll get bored and quit! He'll return to making money! He'll be impeached! Assassinated! He'll get so angry that he has a stroke!"

I live in New York City, so I heard (and hear) all that and more.

Still, I thought the people saying he'd be gone in less than four years were wrong. So, I took bets from friends. So far, it looks like I'm winning.

You can follow the odds at ElectionBettingOdds.com, a site created by my associate Maxim Lott. He doesn't create the numbers—just translates the bets into odds Americans can understand.

I know you Trump fans mock the betting odds. I read your comments on Facebook and Twitter: "Stossel the Fool, your website got Trump's election wrong! Why trust your site now?"

Here's why: Betting odds are more reliable predictors of future events than polls, pundits and everything else.

True, before Trump won, gamblers gave him only a 20 percent chance. But 20 percent isn't nothing, and by election night ElectionBettingOdds.com recognized the truth faster than the TV commentators did.

As I write, the bettors predict that in this year's congressional elections, Republicans will hold the Senate but lose the House.

In 2020, who will be elected president? Trump leads, but oddsmakers give him just a 29 percent chance.

His biggest competition among Democrats is, surprisingly, California Senator Kamala Harris. She has a 7 percent chance. Then Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. (Hillary Clinton ranks even lower: just 2 percent.)

His biggest rival overall is Vice President Mike Pence, at 8 percent.

Yes, it's too early to predict this November's results, let alone 2020's. But watching the odds change is fun (they update every five minutes), and gamblers are the best guide.

Of course, I want a libertarian to win.

For my YouTube video this week, I asked Libertarian Party chairman Nick Sarwark, "Why bother competing? Last election, even though so many people hated both the Democrat and Republican, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson got less than 4 percent of the vote."

"We tripled all previous records," he replied. "In the 45-year history of the Libertarian Party, we've never had that kind of support."

Not good enough, I said.

"Success is a long-term thing," Sarwark assured me. "More people are seeing that when you elect Republicans you don't get the sort of small government they run on. If you elect Democrats, you don't get civil liberties… Both parties are fighting over the ability to take your tax money and give it to their corporate special interest friends."

But those two corrupt major parties keep winning!

"We're growing and they're dying," replied Sarwark. "Voter registration identity with Republicans and Democrats is dropping. Voter registration identity with Libertarians is the only party that's growing."

Some Libertarians claim the party would have done better in 2016 had Gary Johnson been a better candidate. Some complained, "He's too low-key. He sounded like he was stoned."

"No one has the perfect combination of credibility, experience, purity of message," replied Sarwalk. "He was the best candidate the delegates could have picked. And we had the best success that we've ever had."

Win or lose, he added, Libertarians will remind Americans about basic principles we have in common: "The rights of the individual, the right to free speech, to keep and bear arms, limitations on the powers of government. We want a right to live our life and pursue happiness any way we choose—as long as we don't hurt other people and don't take their stuff. And the two old political parties, that's not what they're about. They're about taking power and controlling you."

Watch Stossel's latest Reason TV video below:

COPYRIGHT 2018 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

NEXT: Stop Pretending Sober Drivers Are Stoned

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It never ceases to sadden me that, in their very best showing ever, the Ls managed 4%.

    Here’s a prediction: the next president will be horrible, an idiot, and will grow the debt while curtailing liberty. That’s what they do. And dumb voters keep drinking more statist Koolaid as their IQs continue to decline.

    1. No, it won’t be a libertarian. More likely a Republican pretending to be one that you’ll vote for.

    2. I just started 7 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
      go to this site for more details….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

    3. I just started 7 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
      go to this site for more details….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. How ridiculous. Everyone was touting skewed polls during the campaign. The smart money was on Trump them and it still is. I’m a die hard AnCap but Trump is my man in 2020. He has had the guts to stand up to the globalist while getting reform done. MAGA 2020.

    1. I’m a die hard AnCap but Trump is my man in 2020

      Doesn’t seem like it was all that hard for you to die.

    2. Anyone who thinks “the globalist” is standing in the way of political reform is a Bannon type idiot.

      1. They rail against “globalists” because it’s no longer fashionable to just outright say “the Jews”.

        1. Yes, “the globalist” has replaced the Rothchilds as a stand in for anti-Semites.

          Amazingly, the key economic people for the Con Man were all key execs at Goldman Sachs.

        2. Yep. The most famous globalists Trump has faced off against are what, Hillary, Jeb, Rubio, etc. Notorious Jews. all

          Look, there’s a lot of semi-coded anti-semitism out there, but sometimes it’s just a cigar.

          1. Then explain how Dotard hired the very epitome of “globalist elite” to run things? (Goldman Sachs Gary Cohn, Steve Mnuchin, others)

            1. How much did Goldman Sachs give to Hillary’s campaign?

              1. Nothing. It is illegal for corporations to donate to candidates.

                EMPLOYEES at Goldman gave a lot no doubt. They are New Yorkers, not dumbfucks in flyover country.

                1. Which high-profile finance types don’t have connections to major financial institutions, and if Donald had hired one of those mythical types would you or would you not critique him for hiring people without credentials?

                  I suspect heads Donald loses, heads you win on this one.

    3. I’ve loathed Trump since the 80s because he is a vain and vulgar man. He is an American Berlusconi, which is to say that he’s a Berlusconi with nuclear weapons.

      But if Democrats don’t come to their senses, reject the insanity of the progressive, politically correct left, and get over their TDS, Trump is going to get re-elected. A nutcase who occasionally makes a good decision is better than a nutcase who always makes the wrong decision. No matter what the LP does or libertarians want, Trump gets re-elected in 2020 … barring a hugely unpopular war or economic collapse.

      1. Dems will probably screw it up but I would love to see libertarian minded Mark Cuban in the race just so he could call Trump out on his numerous lies and bullshit.

        Of course posters on H&R don’t like Cuban because he is not conservative.

        1. Some of his ideas are straight up stupid, but if he somehow got on the L ticket he couldn’t be any worse than Johnson and Weld.

          1. Yeah, after Johnson / Weld it’s kind of hard to envision an L ticket that makes less sense.

      2. A nutcase who occasionally makes a good decision is better than a nutcase who always makes the wrong decision.

        Good is a point of view, Cato.

        1. Today’s American progressives have the same decision criteria that Chavez used in Venezuela. Twenty years on, and the country with some of the world’s largest oil reserves is out of gasoline … and everything else.

          Good isn’t just a point of view when it has real world consequences.

          1. OK.

            But if, from many voters’ POV, the decisions proposed by the D challenger sound gooder than Trump’s, your logic will lead them to voting for the D candidate. There is a great deal of insanity in an electorate.

            1. The D will run another version of Karl Marx.

              1. And the R will run an Adolf Hitley.

                See how much fun hyperbole is?

                1. Fascists are leftists.

      3. Berlusconi was at least not senile. Not sure we can say that about Mr Trump.

      4. I think you nailed it. Trump’s a dbag, even people that like him think that. The proggie D types are fucking insane over the guy. Completely irrational, on any subject they start slobbering about Trump. I know people that are nominal D and R’s and never saw anyone get this worked up over Bush or O. The D operatives in the media have done their job well. It’s hilarious to watch the foaming at the mouth, but entirely unhealthy to be this obsessed over politics.

        Fortunately I see team blue snagging the House preventing Congresscritters from doing too much damage before ’20. They’ll all be too busy throwing rocks to fuck anything up which is fine by me. If the economy stays decent and people see more take home pay the guy will probably get re-upped in ’20. Divided government is always good, you can just ignore the idiots in DC.

        1. You people who think the House is going to flip are nucking futs.

          1. they, and there are alot of “they” just dont understand what truly decides who controls the house.

            if they did they’d know that ain’t flipping until 2022 at minimum.

    4. That’s certainly an interesting interpretation of “die hard.”

      1. It’s possible he’s using “AnCap” in a way we’re not familiar with. Maybe it stands for Antelope Capper? Anterior Captain? Angled Capstan?

        1. Unfortunately (?), I think ancap now means what MAGAkekers say it means.

          1. unfortunately it really does have factions of people who are actual anarchists because they believe the initiation of force is wrong who get lumped in with the group who want to just create their own corporate fiefdoms thus technically they are autocrats not anarchists but steal the name as a banner, typically identified by their violence against government fetish facebook pages. the Voluntaryists like me are getting pushed out of the meaning of the word.

            1. You’ll be first out of the helicopter, cuck.

            2. What does the ‘An’ in AnCap mean, again. It’s written right there in the title, but they shortened it to make a neat sounding word.

              Anarchists come in many different stripes. Some of them will burn your car for fun and giggles, and some of them pretend they won’t. (Kidding, mostly.)

      2. No kidding. Everyone knows that principled anarcho-capitalists vote lockstep with Democrats and are obsessed with whether faggot Mexicans can get green cards.

    5. So as an “An-Cap” at what point is it okay to use force against innocent people to get what you want?
      is voting not an act of aggression?
      is taxation no longer theft cuz trump?
      or have you missed the concept of a voluntary society completely?

  3. The Libertarians need to stop acting like a political party and start acting like a special interest group. Well run special interest groups get everything they want. Spending on public education doubles, and then doubles again. Meanwhile most of the public thinks schools have been cut to the bone. I don’t care if Libertarians are in office. I just want more liberty. Let’s copy the people who already have a winning strategy.

  4. This is really sad.

    The bookies weren’t just wrong on the last election–they were spectacularly wrong..

    On election day, they had Hillary up at insane percentages.

    Percentages that crashed and burned throughout the day.

    Now they give Trump a 50/50 chance of completing his first term. And it’s being taken seriously by people who should know better.

    Here’s why: Betting odds are more reliable predictors of future events than polls, pundits and everything else.

    They are? Then why are they wrong so often? Because, you see, we tend to only highlight when they’re right. That makes those instances stand out. We don’t run huge series about losers at betting endlessly.

    Speaking of losers, there’s Sarwark. The man who sees failure as success. The man who is so partisan that he prefers supporting losing elections over throwing the LPs support behind a candidate who has a chance of winning the nomination. The man who sees making the LP a ‘spoiler’ party as his crowning achievement.

    Yes, let’s all listen to him.

    1. Because, you see, we tend to only highlight when they’re right. That makes those instances stand out. We don’t run huge series about losers at betting endlessly.

      The issue of confirmation bias does cast a dark shadow over betting odds on things like elections. Plus add in things like how many people have started betting based on what they want to happen in their hearts, rather than what they think will happen based on the evidence, and we see some pretty skewed results.

      The Moore election was a pretty good recent example. And of course the 2020 election, where statisticians were openly proclaiming that Trump’s odds were 2%, helping to influence the betting markets. Ex: the odds of Trump winning Florida were rated ~30% when he was consistently up in the polls by 2% leading up to the election.

      1. The betting markets are just an aggregate of public belief. If the public is widely misled, e.g. the people who watch CNN, then the betting market will be thrown off too. And yet, I’d still take their hunches over “experts” any day. Why complain? It’s a tremendous profit opportunity. Put up a bet against them.

        1. For the most part, you are right. And that’s why the betting odds aren’t to be trusted. Much of it is really based on belief.

          I’m not putting up a bet because A) I’m unbelievably risk averse and B) Just because I think they’re retarded doesn’t mean I’m arrogant enough to believe I know what is going to actually happen. I have charted my own imaginary bets, and I get some really right, and others really wrong.

          Most other people are likely in my boat: you really have no clue, despite liking to pretend you do. So don’t put your money down, because it’s a crapshoot.


          1. Most other people are likely in my boat: you really have no clue, despite liking to pretend you do. So don’t put your money down, because it’s a crapshoot.

            This. All of us around here love to throw out prognostications, but I think we’re all pretty sure that we’re going to be wrong most of the time. Of course, then there are the statistical aberrations who are somehow right every time despite knowing nothing about the circumstances. This is how you end up with people seriously believing an octopus can call elections. True story.

    2. The bookies weren’t just wrong on the last election–they were spectacularly wrong.

      The job of bookies isn’t to predict the outcome, it’s to set odds that balance the two sides of the bet so that the bookie will come out on top no matter what happens.

    3. I think both can be true, in that the ‘bookies’ can be more accurate, but that’s considering that what you’re comparing them to is also tremendously inaccurate.

  5. He’s gonna get IMPEACHED!

    1. Thank God! We’ll finally have President Pence! The time to purge the gayz is nigh!

  6. I had my issues with Gary and Bill, but I do think any other candidate combination would have gotten fewer votes than Jill Stein did (who gets all of the attention, despite getting 1.5 million votes to Gary’s 4.5 million).

    Gary’s also absolutely right that the presidential debate duopoly is probably the largest hindrance to breaking the two-party stranglehold right now, at the presidential level.

    1. I think just about anyone could have done better than Gayjay. Take Petersen, or McAfee for example. Both had charisma and intelligence. Neither would have made the ridiculous buffoonish goofs of Johnson, nor would they have gone off on some insane rant about “them immigrants isn’t illegal and yuz can’t call ’em that”. Well… maybe McAfee would have still gone off on some other insane rant…

      This was an election where people were literally begging for anyone to run against Trump/Hilary and the Libertarians propped up the worst possible example to lead the cause. The guy is a walking advert for continued marijuana prohibition. Add in carbon taxes, and all sorts of other progressive dogma, and we didn’t even have a remotely appetizing libertarian candidate.

      I was going to vote Libertarian, and he made it impossible for me to stomach. I did vote L in my senate race, for all the good it did me.

      1. Take Petersen, or McAfee for example. Both had charisma and intelligence.

        True, but McAfee is like a cartoon version of a Libertarian who would have been relentlessly mocked in the mainstream media and made to look like a murderer, a drug-addict, and an old-school filibuster. This was already ready-to-go in time for the election.

        Peterson was just a Republican sowing his bona-fides, and is now a Republican-in-name, too. He would have simply fed the narrative that Libertarians are just Republicans who are being coy.

        The LP showed as well as it did because of Johnson, not in spite of him.

        1. Meh. We’ll just have to disagree. Don’t get me wrong, Peterson and McAfee weren’t going to win the election. Not even close. And I acknowledge McAfee has some issues, but I think both could have gotten a better showing than Gayjay.

          You may be right about McAfee, and the “murderer” aspect driving people away in droves. But your argument against Peterson isn’t very convincing. The only “Republican” thing about his campaign was the fact that he was pro-life. Maybe that would have damaged the LP brand long-term but he’d have actually had a shot at getting you some votes, which is what the discussion was about.

        2. Peterson was just a Republican sowing his bona-fides, and is now a Republican-in-name, too.

          Lol. Hey, dumbfuck, guess which party banner Gary Johnson governed New Mexico under?

  7. Kamala Harris would be awful, but I will agree that maybe she has a shot.

    Warren would be equally awful, maybe horrific, but maybe she has a shot.

    Biden/Bernie… Sorry, but they are both more likely to be pushing up daisies in 2020.

    The tax cuts will stimulate the economy. Hiring and salaries will pick up. GDP will be in the 3 to 4 range. The D party is hanging their hats on open borders, tax hikes, class warfare, apologizing for Muslims and denigrating white people. Trump wins!

    1. I think there’s a decent chance he loses, but honestly it’s anyone’s guess. There is no way to know what will be happening in 2020. But we can make some educated guesses based on historical trends and demographics. Die-hard dems will still vote dem no matter what. The Trump base will still vote Trump. He won’t be primaried–regardless of all the people claiming otherwise.

      Because of immigrants and illegal immigrants, I think demographically speaking, there is a strong chance that Trump will lose in 2020, and that liberty dies forever after him. The coastal states will rule over fly-over country, and this experiment will be done. I’m praying it doesn’t go this way, but realistically we don’t have enough time to save ourselves.

      1. You make a reasoned argument. I agree completely with your first paragraph.

        If the tax reforms have the effect I expect. Then Trump will win, even though he is a loose cannon, narcissist, douche-bag.

        1. I like to believe you’re right. I hope so. I’m admittedly a pessimist. (I thought Trump would lose in a close election with Clinton getting ~275 EV)

          It is my concern that the Obama Administration successfully planted enough immigrants in places like Michigan that they will turn the tide. Pretty much all of the settlements he created will be granted citizenship by 2020, and like it or not, the reality is that immigrants will vote Democrat overwhelmingly.

          1. Not only that but the Dems will double down on bashing white men in the next election cycle. But this may have the effect of energizing white men to turn out for the election in unprecedented rates and may yet defeat the Dem candidate.

            But then the progs will just call them all racist and will triple down on bashing white men.

            1. It also has the effect of energizing white women, many of whom don’t appreciate hearing their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons described in such terms. Couple that with screaming ‘You’re so stupid you voted against your own voice!’ at them for a few years.

              1. It also has the effect of energizing white women, many of whom don’t appreciate hearing their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons described in such terms.

                Don’t even need that angle – direct attacks on white women have gotten more and more common, and aren’t helping the Dems to retain their base.

            2. These things will matter less and less as the white percentage of the vote continues to decline.

            3. … you do know that white folk already vote at higher rates then most other ethnicities, right?

              1. When comparing rates of different ethnic groups, then yes you are correct. However, all ethnic groups still vote at generally low rates, the only outlier to that was Obamas first election where numbers of blacks who did vote were a very high, bordering better than 80% in some places, as a percentage of those eligible to vote. Now just imagine of better than 80% of all eligible white voters actually went to the polls.

                1. Now just imagine of better than 80% of all eligible white voters actually went to the polls.

                  Okay, but you’re going to have to fill in the blank on why white voters, and white voters specifically, would be motivated to do so.

                  “White resentment” ain’t the answer. That may have won Trump the presidency, but it didn’t get historic turn-out. So that really is a blank you need to figure out.

            4. Yes, yes, whites are more likely to vote than other groups, however, whites are the only group that doesn’t vote largely as a block based on skin as an in-group preference.

              1. Which is my whole point, as long as Dems and the progs keep doubling down on their whitey is bad BS then they shouldn’t be surprised when whites do start to vote as a block based on skin color.

                1. It would be a logical assumption that as special privileges are doled out in ever-increasing amounts based purely upon an ethic status of ‘non-white’ that yes, white people will become increasingly incentivized the play the same game.

                  And, as you note, as the percentage of ‘white’ people declines in America it would be logical for them to behave more and more like a minority when, functionally, they become an actual minority.

                  In fact, we already see this happening.

                  And also, please note than when I use the word ‘minority’ in this instance I’m really saying ‘special interest group’ because that’s really what they are. Notably, ‘white people’ special interest groups appear to be things like the KKK and Nazi’s at the moment if CNN is to be believed. Interesting…

            5. It’s absolutely untenable to have a white identity, or to have white people do anything as a block in the current political climate. As BYOBD points out, the news immediately screeches “KKK!” and “Nazi” at people like Jared Taylor, who is as far from the Nazi party as someone can get.

              It will continue to work for the foreseeable future as this seems to be a white weakness. We have only to look at South Africa, where white people still can’t get themselves to act as a group, despite facing literal genocide.

    2. If the economy is good in 2020 the Dems aren’t going to win with any of the loons that are being suggested.

      1. The economy was great when the Dotard narrowly won last year.

        Record string of monthly job gains, record market highs, low inflation, low interest rates, etc.

        Of course the Con Man thinks he hit a home run when he was elected standing on 3rd base.

        1. The economy wasn’t great last year. GDP growth was 1.6%. That’s abysmal. When you factor in population growth of 0.7% in 2016, then per capita GDP growth was well under 1%.

          1. Shhh, shreik thinks the stock market is the end all be all indicator of the economy. Don’t burst his bubble.

          2. GDP growth of 2% is normal for an aging society. The other stats were excellent including job growth.

            Think back to 2008 for bad GDP numbers.

            1. It’s over 3% now. Did we get younger?

            2. It’s weird that society has been older on average than it is today, but GDP growth has never been lower

          3. PB thinks that rates like 1.6% are the ‘new normal’. You gotta read between the lines.

        2. If you keep telling the poor and lower middle class how great everything is, eventually they’ll realize that isn’t warm rain falling from the sky.

          Monthly job gains: that’s fair, though if you already have a job, what does this matter to you directly? The stock market means ZERO to folks who don’t have an IRA/401k or investments. Low inflation has minimal impact on the poor/lower middle class – they are living paycheck to paycheck and only see their rent and utility/grocery bills getting more expensive every year. Low interest rates? If they are paycheck to paycheck, they can’t qualify for financing at prime rates, their debt to income is much too high.

          The only economic indicator the poor and lower middle class care about is their paycheck: is it getting bigger or staying the same every year? That’s the only thing that matters.

          So here we are, taxes have been lowered for 90% of the country (who file taxes) and Trump is going to HAMMER that point during the midterms. He’ll ask: “Did I tell you I’d grow your paychecks? Did I follow through? Give me a GOP Congress for another 2 years until 2020 and we’ll really get more money in your pockets”. That’s Kool aid to the working class. On top of tax breaks, many companies are giving raises to employees (targeted at those on the lower end of the salary range) and telling their employees that they are getting raises BECAUSE of the tax cuts that were just passed. It’s literally trickle down IN REAL TIME.

          1. Yeah, they’re really counting on people ignoring that their taxes are going to go up in a few years, and not paying attention when congress tries to cut services this year.

            1. Cutting spending? Congress? We can only hope.

              And if the Congress gets red enough, their taxes WON’T be going up. THAT was forced upon us by Democrats–and don’t think that it will fail to be mentioned this election season.

              1. So if Republicans were dirty lying liars who lie a lot from Liarton Ohio, and crossed their fingers when they made all those promises to the fiscal hawk wing of the party and the American people, we’ll be fine.

                Well, I can’t fault you for thinking they’re all liars. But betting on just who they were lying to is a fool’s game.

                1. I wonder if you believe that, if people keep more of their own money, that they might need less of those ‘services’ you mentioned.

                  Am I happy that Republicans fail at cutting spending? No.

                  Do I recognize that every single last Democrat in the Government would never, ever sign on to anything that cuts spending by any amount? Yes.

                  Therefore, should I be happy that I’m keeping more of my own money? Of course.

                  Because I’m not going to see a dime of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or any other alphabet soup agency payout. So I need my money now, when smart investing can actually do something for me.

                  Just don’t be stupid and invest in things that are non-tangible, since of course such a monetary policy is long-term suicide. But so is the alternative of super-high taxation and astronomical expenditures.

                  You’re basically asking if I want to be shot in the head, or shot in the knee. Sorry, bub. I take the knee.

            2. *their taxes are going to go up in a few years,*

              Wherein “up” means “back to where they were in 2017”.

              Dolt.

          2. “Low inflation has minimal impact on the poor/lower middle class”

            I know for certain that you weren’t “poor/lower middle class” back in the 70s. I was, and high inflation sucked really, really bad.

            1. Hence why they said ‘low inflation’, obviously.

    3. The tax cuts will stimulate the economy.

      Look, I think crack should be legal, but that doesn’t mean you should smoke it before posting. Nothing about the latest tax cuts is structured in any way that’s likely to produce significant additional economic growth.

      1. But it puts money in the working classes pocket, that’s what matters “economically” to the working class.

      2. Yeah, everybody knows that stimulus only works when the government is cutting the checks, not when people have more money to spend and save on their own.

  8. The only way the Con Man doesn’t finish his term is if he croaks of a brain aneurysm or chokes on his beloved Big Mac Mama Cass style. Something like that is about a 20% probability.

    Since impeachment is a political event that is off the table, even if there are pictures of him blowing Putin.

    1. Russia!

      That’s the ticket!!

      1. Russia is off the table even when they find the Con Man has been laundering money for Russian mobsters for years.

        Trump is a serial bankruptcy deadbeat who couldn’t get a legit loan from a US bank.

        1. Trump was just playing by the mob/Democrat play book.

          1. This is easily the most intelligent post ever made on the internet.

            1. He likes to win, even in a rigged game.

    2. I don’t know. I think I’d put aneurysm at 50% probability.

  9. Kamala’s appeal is that she is a vaginated version of Barack. She is pretty and well spoken.

    Warren is a rich, vaginated version of Bernie.

    Between Harris and Warren, my money is on Harris.

    I would like to see the Democrats re-embrace sanity, but I think they are too far gone.

    Trump might decide to retire. In that case, who will the Republicans put up in his place?

    1. Is it too soon to say I’d get behind Harris? I mean she’d have to consent and all…

      1. willie brown liked it there

  10. “”He can’t take the criticism! He’ll get mad and quit! He’ll get bored and quit! He’ll return to making money! He’ll be impeached! Assassinated! He’ll get so angry that he has a stroke!””

    These were all good points in 2009, but Obama not only finished his term, but got re-elected.

  11. In regards to those odds, I suspect there’s a certain amount of “America’s Team” effect.

    Some teams have a much larger fan base than others, and people don’t just bet because they think one team will win. They bet on their favorite team, sometimes, just because it adds to the excitement of rooting for their favorite team during the game.

    Ohio State has a much larger fan base than William and Mary. Should they meet in a bowl game, the odds may not reflect the likelihood of the outcome so much as they reflect the number of Ohio State fans who bet on Ohio State just to enhance the experience of watching the game.

    I suspect the anti-Trump bet is like that. There are simply more Trump haters than people who are resigned to Trump. In fact, I suspect many in Trump’s base support him mostly because the people who hate him hate him so much.

    Markets are the best system for conveying important information about the state of the world right now. Bet against them at your peril.

    Markets are not infallible predictors of the future. The old saw about how the market correctly predicted seven of the last three recessions gets it exactly right.

  12. Hopefully Mueller’s investigation will uncover definitive proof of crimes serious enough that the coming Democratic congressional majority will remove Drumpf from office. But even if that fails to materialize, the Democrats have so many excellent potential candidates I don’t see how Orange Hitler could win again in 2020, unless that election gets hacked by the Russians as well. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand ? certainly any of them will beat Putin’s puppet. Especially with his popularity declining as voters survey the wreckage caused by the Net Neutrality decision and the GOP Tax Scam.

    1. Poe’s Law.

      1. No, that’s got to be sarcasm. It’s just very well done.

        But there’s no way this line can be straight:

        “the Democrats have so many excellent potential candidates I don’t see how Orange Hitler could win again in 2020, unless that election gets hacked by the Russians as well. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand ? certainly any of them will beat Putin’s puppet”

        1. It reads like “serious” commentary from DU, not like the unhinged lunacy offered by our real trolls.

          1. Harris and Warren are far left candidates. They’ll carry the usual blue states. It’s not at all clear they can bring in the swing states needed to actually win the EC.

          2. Oh he’s a troll, don’t mistake him got anything but

      2. What’s sad is if you ever look on Reddit, there are a ton of people out there that actually believe it.

  13. I read Warren Buffet once make an analogy of the stock market as a manic-depressive business partner. When things are good, he wants to buy shares of the business from you at an irrational premium. When things are bad, he wants to sell you shares at an irrational discount. The object is to take advantage of his mood swings. The easiest way to blow it is to fall under his influence.

    Much of the hostility people direct at journalists these days is about them falling under the influence of that Trump market. It’s Tulip Mania. It’s the dotcom boom and bust. It’s subprime mortgage backed securities. It’s probably bitcoin.

    People have become so focused on what Trump says. It’s so sad. Someday, we’ll look back on all those journalists hanging on every one of Trump’s tweets and laugh. Some people really think Trump’s tweets are important. They take his tweets more seriously than he does, I’m sure.

    The revolution will be tweeted!

    1. When things are bad, he wants to sell you shares at an irrational discount.

      Cite?

      Buffett famously bought billions during the economic collapse of 2008. He even says he like to buy when there is “blood in the streets”.

      1. Are you so out of it that you think Buffet buying when there’s blood in the streets disproves the suggestion that he wants to buy stocks at an irrational discount?

        The stock market is the business partner in that analogy, you fool.

        How long have you been reading here? Fifteen years?!

        Do you still not understand anything about markets?

        1. You said “SELL” you his shares at an irrational discount.

          When things are bad, he wants to sell you shares at an irrational discount.

          You cannot read what you wrote yourself?

          1. Palin, in the analogy, the Market is the partner that wants to sell you his shares at an irrational discount during downturns, and the Market is the partner that wants to buy your shares at an irrational premium when things are good.

          2. Yes!

            When things are bad, the manic-depressive market wants to sell you his shares in the partnership at an irrational discount.

            Because that’s hard for you to understand, you are an ignoramus.

            I have never in my life come across someone as obtuse as you are.

            Because you’re an ignoramus, you don’t understand the implications of what other people are saying–even when they’re saying basic things like “Buy low, sell high”.

            It’s amazing that you could read this site for this long and still not understand an analogy about the market wanting to sell you stocks at a discount when it thinks things are bad. It’s not that you don’t know that the market crashes sometimes. You just can’t translate that knowledge into the idea that the market wants to sell you stocks at an irrational discount when it’s crashing?

            What do you think market crashes are, Shrike, if not people falling all over themselves to sell you their shares at an ever deeper discount to what they were selling for when the market thought things were good?

            Once you admit to yourself that you have no idea what you’re talking about, maybe things can change. Until then, you will continue to beclown yourself.

            1. You began your paragraph with Buffett and used “he” and “his” throughout it.

              A proofreader would rewrite that whole fricking thing, Ken.

              1. No, it was pretty clear what Ken meant.

              2. “I read Warren Buffet once make an analogy of the stock market as a manic-depressive business partner. When things are good, he wants to buy shares of the business from you at an irrational premium.”

                A pronoun references an antecedent noun. Absent context, it may be assumed to refer to the closest antecedent noun, which in this case is the “manic-depressive business partner”.

                Even if it were not clear by proximity, it would be clear by context that the pronoun refers to the manic-depressive business partner. Only an idiot or a lazy reader would fail to recognize that.

              3. The funny part here is that PB often claims to work in finance. Hmm…

            2. You began your paragraph with Buffett and used “he” and “his” throughout it.

              It shouldn’t be difficult to understand that once you have personified an object in a discussion, that the now personified object would be referred to as “he” or “she” rather than “it”.

              1. In fairness, all ambiguity could have been removed by referring to the market as “it”, adding quotations around Buffett’s statement, clarifying that Buffett is being paraphrased, etc. All y’all need to chill. Lots of people getting worked up over a small failure of communication.

                1. Of course, that would have precluded Buffet’s analogy of the market as a manic-depressive business partner.

                  Really, you guys shouldn’t take Shrike’s protests seriously at all. Shrike has no idea what he’s talking about, and his grammar argument is about deflecting from his own ignorance.

                  He didn’t understand that the market wants to sell you things at a discount when it’s in a bad mood, and he’s trying to distract by being a grammar Nazi. No one else but Shrike had any problem understanding what I wrote–because no one but Shrike is as woefully ignorant about market basics.

                  This is hardly the first time he’s* beclowned himself on fundamental market observations this way.

                  *That pronoun means you, Shrike. Not Buffet.

      2. Derpity, derp derp, derp Ka-ching!

        I told you so.

        Yours Derply,

        Mr. Derp.

        1. “Buy” is different than “sell”, you idiot.

    2. When things are good, he wants to buy shares of the business from you at an irrational premium

      This is more stupid shit from you. Since when does Buffett want to BUY from anyone at an irrational premium?

      Just admit you don’t know shit, Ken.

      1. You really are stupid, aren’t you?

        1. Yeah, I know. Buffett is a communist. All the idiot Trumptards say he is because he won’t vote for an idiot conservative.

          And Ken should learn how to use pronouns.

          1. “Warren Buffet once make an analogy of the stock market as a manic-depressive business partner. When things are good, he wants to buy shares of the business from you at an irrational premium. When things are bad, he wants to sell you shares at an irrational discount. The object is to take advantage of his mood swings. The easiest way to blow it is to fall under his influence.”

            Only a complete fucking moron would attribute the he pronoun to Buffet when Buffet is the one making the goddamn analogy of the market being a manic-depressive business partner. If Ken is guilty of anything it’s not putting quotation marks around the alleged analogy so morons like you could understand it better.

            And Buffet isn’t a communist, he’s just a lying asshole.

            1. Who refers to the market as a “he” and not “it”? Are you and Ken fucking 10 years old?

              1. Shreek doesn’t understand how figurative speech works. Sad!

              2. Because when you compare something to a human being, you use human pronouns? I don’t know, take it up with Buffet as he’s the one that made the fucking analogy.

              3. “Who refers to the market as a “he” and not “it”?

                Warren Buffet in an analogy.

            2. And Buffett is honest when he says capital should be taxed at the same rate as labor. You conservatives hate him for his honesty.

              That is no lie, it is a POV.

              1. I’d be okay with that if it means cutting payroll taxes, corporate taxes, and capital gains (with a concomitant cut in federal spending). Sound good?

              2. After researching, I realize that I was misremembering his statement as him paying less taxes when it was actually a lower rate.

                He’s still an asshole for suggesting that I should pay more taxes on money I invest (after having to pay taxes on earning that money in the first place). If he thinks his tax rate is too low, he could always stop claiming deductions and credits. Or write a check to the treasury.

                And I’m not a conservative.

                1. His remarks as I remember them were about how he pays less taxes on his capital gains than his secretary pays on her income.

                  That’s comparing apples to oranges.

                  His secretary pays less in income taxes than he pays in income taxes.

                  His secretary pays less than him in capital gains–both in absolute terms and as a percentage.

                  Why would she pay capital gains tax if she doesn’t have capital gains? If Buffet has hundreds of millions in capital gains every year, and his secretary only has a few thousand, she’s still paying far less in capital gains than he is–even if they were paying the same rate.

                  Buffet has always projected himself as being on the left–especially in his news media purchases (Washington Post, Cap Cities ABC, etc). It’s a strategic advantage. He counseled his protege, Bill Gates to do the same thing in the wake of Microsoft’s antitrust problems–which is why Gates launched MSNBC and became a media player. Whatever else it is, it’s a strategic decision.

                  The free market/supply side right isn’t going to come after you anyway, then you want the Maddow’s, Washington Posts, etc. of the world to be on your payroll. Throw the progressives a bone every once in a while in the news, and they’ll leave you alone. I think that’s what Buffet’s statements are about.

      2. And round number 2 where you get owned about the same post. It’s like you enjoy being called an idiot. Enjoying the pain and belittling is kind of a cuck move, I think by definition it’s that

  14. This betting market was 1 year out from the election

    We are 3 years out from the next election.

    One of the more interesting things a science teacher in 7th grade told me was that 5 day forecasts were mostly fiction.

    I will make numbers up for illustration (please: spare me any pedantic corrections)

    e.g. You can predict the next day’s weather with 90% certainty, you can predict weather 2 days out with 80 percent certainty, 3 days out with 60%, 4 days out with 20% certainty, and 5 days out with – effectively – *zero*.

    the math is wrong, but the basic idea is that for every additional day you get 2X the amount of previous day’s uncertainty, and beyond a certain time-distance threshold, there’s no point even bothering to pretend your method has any value whatsoever.

    here’s when i start to give a shit about ‘polling’/opinion-parsing/betting markets: within a month of the election

  15. My own useless prognostication: if the Dems are super stupid heads after retaking Congress this year, Trump will be in a good spot to win reelection.

    May god have mercy on us all.

    1. What makes you think they will retake congress this year?

      1. What makes you think they won’t?

        GOTCHA

        1. Truly, you are a wizard.

          Seriously though, I think they’ll pick up a couple seats in the Senate, possibly taking it, but not enough seats in the House to do anything.

          I don’t think they can use the same strategy they did in Alabama, as overuse will make people just decide that it’s all political bullshit.

          1. What strategy did they use in Alabama?

            Dems/anti-Trumpers got the juice. It will take a lot to motivate Rs to get out and vote. Majorities in both chambers may be a stretch, but they gonna be making GAINS.

            1. The “make sure the democrat isn’t as repulsive as the republican, and just in case let’s have some people on standby to accuse the horrible republican candidate who wins the primary of some kind of sexual misconduct.” strategy.*

              Admittedly, this strategy is pretty easy to follow because republicans put up shitty fucking candidates with asinine views on women and gays and the bible who espouse “family values” bullshit.

              *I think Moore is probably guilty of most of the stuff he was accused of, I just found it ridiculously convenient that instead of it coming out during the primaries it came out during the special election.

          2. I think they’ll pick up a couple seats in the Senate, possibly taking it, but not enough seats in the House to do anything.

            “you think”?

            i’m not offering any forecasts, but the underlying reality of the 2018 election has more Dem senate seats up for grabs than GOP senate seats.

            there is only 1 state – Nevada – where there’s a senate election with a GOP incumbent in a state Clinton won.

            by contrast, there are 7 democrat senators up for re-election in states Trump won. and by a lot.

            Where you do have GOP senators departing (e.g. Flake in AZ) they are often in places where the likelihood someone more conservative will replace them.

            in short – a positive outcome for Dems in the senate would simply be ‘not losing seats’.

            in the house, fortunes are significantly better for them. but they’d still have to do better than normal in a mid-term to take the house (~average gain is 22 seats exchanged; they need 24+ to take the house, last i checked).

            historical trends suggest if the economy + market keeps booming, the DNC odds of success diminish.

            1. In my defense, I had no idea what the makeup of the senate seats vs. 2016 election results were.

          3. How are they going to pick up seats in the Senate when they are defending more seats than the Republicans?

            Doesn’t anyone here know how to play this game?

      2. History.

        Going back to 1910 (27 midterm elections), the president’s party has lost seats in both house and senate 21 times (77%), lost seats in at least one of the two three times (11%), and broken even/gained seats three times (11%).

        Those three “gained” are 1934 under Roosevelt, 1998 under Clinton following the impeachment attempt, and 2002 under Bush following his “war bump”.

        So unless something truly unusual happens? in the next 11 months, Republicans will probably lose seats this year too. Given that their margin isn’t that big to begin with, it’s entirely possible that they’ll lose one or both (well, probably not both. But probably at least one).
        ________
        ?Probably on the level of “impeachment” or “9/11” of “unusual”.

        1. A lot of Democrats are already trying to turn the 2018 midterms into a referendum on impeaching Donald Trump. “Give us control of Congress so we can impeach 45!’

          This will work great as a base turnout strategy, but will also have the consequence of firing up the conservative base as well, and giving independent voters the idea that the Democrats are having a temper tantrum and trying to reverse an election that didn’t go their way.

          1. I said “something truly unusual”, not “same old, same old”.

            1. I haven’t seen anything like what Democrats are pulling with Trump at any point in my lifetime. Remember all the Republican votes to impeach Obama? No, me neither. Yet we’re on attempt #3 with Trump already.

              Cute stuff.

              1. … you do know that Republicans actually did impeach Clinton, right?

                And it’s not like Republicans didn’t make every election after 2008 a referendum on the ACA (including 2009 special elections before it was passed), then proceeded to spend seven years trying to repeal it in over 40+ votes or anything.

                So yeah. “Same old, same old”.

                1. …so perjury isn’t a good reason to impeach a President in your view?

                  It isn’t uncommon for random Congressional idiots to put forward a ‘fake’ impeachment attempt to generate interest in them in their home districts, but two in a Presidents first year is pretty unusual.

    2. As I always say, the best we can hope for is gridlock.

  16. plenty of libertarian candidates with a decent message and ability to lead
    Gar Jar Nazi Cakes was not among them
    Sarwalks comments on being a proud loser and referring to Johnson w/ gun ban Weld as the best libertarian candidates highlight why i abandoned the LP and why they will get no more money, because the leadership refuses to accept that milquetoast candidates who arent even remotely libertarian were a shitty idea, and that Nick will just double down on stupid as the chair.

  17. Trump is so incredibly insane that he’s defying poli-sci geekdom that says that a rutabaga could win reelection with these economic numbers. He’s also confirming modern poli-sci thought that all politics is not local, but presidential, though I concede that perhaps running a child fucker in Alabama doesn’t help test any general case of a partisan wave.

    What isn’t said enough is that neither Trump nor Congressional Republicans have ever had majority support from Americans. This country does not want what they’re selling. Nearly unanimously against ditching net neutrality, and they don’t care. The mere appearance of support from hundreds of thousands of fake comments from Russians is good enough for them. Anyone else concerned by how little this country is resembling a democracy at this point? No?

    1. “Nearly unanimously against ditching net neutrality, and they don’t care.”

      That is patently untrue. But it doesn’t surprise me that 52% of the country is functionally retarded.

      1. He probably means the fake-news MSM.

        Same BS they pulled with “climate change” until people started waking up to the scam.

      2. 83%

        Of course, geniuses like yourself will no doubt be a minority.

        1. The smallest minority in those polls are ones that can accurately describe what “net neutrality” is, what its absence means, and what effect of either would have.

          1. The 52% number is from another poll (literally the first result on Google). It’s from a legit polling organization. I’m gonna guess the disconnect has to do with how the question is worded or polling methodology. Moral of the story: you can always cherry pick a poll to support your view.

            1. none of which has anything to do with my point.

              the opinion of 50 or 80% of the public is equally irrelevant if 10% (or less) could answer (without prompts),

              “what’s the difference between FCC Title II and section 706, and what are the regulatory implications and costs associated with each?”

              gathering “opinions” on new-regulation from people that don’t even understand current regulations is a meaningless exercise.

              1. gathering “opinions” on new-regulation from people that don’t even understand current regulations is a meaningless exercise.

                +101%

                “Net neutrality” is a scam dressed up with a cuddly name to get suckers to support it without thinking too hard.

              2. Replied to the wrong post in the thread. I understand your point. The same could be said about almost any other topic on which polling is conducted.

                1. “”The same could be said about almost any other topic on which polling is conducted.””

                  No, not at all.

                  in the case of presidential elections, things like polling matter because the ‘feelings’ – no matter how ignorant or retarded – is all anyone needs in order to cast a vote one way or the other. “Feels-matters”, in other words

                  what people “feel” about detailed policy shit like telecommunication-regulations is effectively meaningless. Its decided as part of internal FCC deliberations. people are free to have stupid opinions, but those stupid opinions are significant of nothing and have no direct impact on anything.

                  what “most people think” can or can’t be significant, but only insofar as you can connect the stated-preference of what is being polled to some *revealed preference* which is acted out in some behavioral measure.

                  in other words, unless ‘what people think’ has some very direct impact on ‘what people do’…. its all so much farts in the wind.

                  A decent proxy for popular significance is, “did it affect stock market prices”. the FCC made its decision a few weeks ago. since then, even some of the stocks most-negatively affected by the removal of Title II regulations are up

                  The conclusion you can draw is that people who know most-intimately how the regulations will affect things are not terribly bothered by the change.

            2. Dig into the polls and look at the actual questions asked. When you ask “do you support net neutrality” or “do you support regulating like a telecom”, you get the split support. When you ask about the actual policy goals, you get extremely high support. I’d say the latter was the more accurate number since it’s about the policy itself rather than partisan buzzwords.

        2. I can link stuff too.

          I find it hard to believe that the poll swung 30 points in two weeks, but let’s say it did. 83% is not “near unanimous”.

          1. How did each poll phrase the question? Are they even asking the same things? What were the methodologies? Without that info, quoting either poll proves nothing.

            1. Survey question from the poll I linked:

              “As you may know, net neutrality is a set of rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which say Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon, cannot block, throttle or prioritize certain content on the Internet. Knowing this, do you support or oppose net neutrality?”

              Which is still not everything that NN was about.

              1. I love how vague ‘certain content’ is.

    2. Anyone else concerned by how little this country is resembling a democracy at this point?

      I’m concerned, absolutely. It would be much more democratic (small “d”) to eliminate the Electoral College and choose presidents based on national popular vote, for example. But I’m confused by this part of your post:

      Trump is so incredibly insane that he’s defying poli-sci geekdom that says that a rutabaga could win reelection with these economic numbers.

      Are you saying the economy is good now, and will continue to be good up to 2020? What about the disastrous economic effects of the GOP Tax Scam?

      1. Most of the negative effects of the GOP’s tax bill won’t be appearing until after 2020. Which is 100% by design, as they didn’t want to risk the 2020 election.

        1. Shhh – we’ve got another fake-troll, real-troll exchange going!

      2. Deficit-funded tax cuts may result in minor stimulus, and the expiration date of the cuts for the middle class are conveniently timed for Republicans. Nevertheless, Trump’s personality and mental health issues seem to be overriding everything else.

        1. I’m sure if you or I could get a hold of the budget we could find $150Billion a year to cut from somewhere. Of course Republicans have been as loathe to cut the budget as Democrats so it doesn’t surprise me that they can’t.

          1. You would be wrong if you think Tony could find a dollar in the Federal budget that he wanted to cut. Then again, I suppose he would be fine with reducing defense spending in favor of spending even more than our current ~70% of the budget on entitlements.

            Because in Tony world, you go after the smaller budget items that aren’t driving the explosion of spending.

            1. Hey man, every once in a while I feel magnanimous and extend an olive branch.

              1. I’m going to assume that ‘olive branch’ is a nickname for one of your fingers ^_-

        2. Dems still need a viable candidate and don’t have one yet.

      3. Re: Whoeveryouare,

        I’m concerned, absolutely. It would be much more democratic (small “d”) to eliminate the Electoral College and choose presidents based on national popular vote, for example.

        It wouldn’t be “more democratic” as you claim, since the voices of the minority that do not live in the big cities would not be heard. It is one thing to advocate for democracy but quite another to claim that simple majority rule is ‘democratic’, because it’s not.

        What about the disastrous economic effects of the GOP Tax Scam?

        Lowering taxes is not going to have a detrimental effect on the economy – the DEFICITS will. The tax bill will only provide a temporary respite for many including a good number of people in the middle class, but the higher deficits represent a tax on the economy itself as the government borrows from future production or has the Federal Reserve issue more currency to finance spending, which leads to that other form of surreptitious taxation which is inflation.

        1. It wouldn’t be “more democratic” as you claim, since the voices of the minority that do not live in the big cities would not be heard.
          Under the current system only the “voices” from a half-dozen “swing” states are actually heard, regardless of party. Voters in California and Texas, regardless of party or population density, are taken for granted in presidential elections. The candidates come ’round to fundraise, but they don’t care about issues relating to those states.

          So you think a half-dozen states having an out-sized influence to the election is somehow more Democratic then people in every state (red, blue, purple and green) having an equal voice? Face it, your preferred scheme “silences” plenty of “rural” voters as-is.

          1. Re: EscherEnigma,

            Under the current system only the “voices” from a half-dozen “swing” states are actually heard, regardless of party.

            That might well be but then the onus is on the candidate to make an extra effort convincing the people in a dozen “swing states” which guarantees that no single and very-populated State (like California) controls all elections, doesn’t it?

            […] your preferred scheme “silences” plenty of “rural” voters as-is.

            Oh, really? What would be the situation with a simple majority decision, Escher? At least with the Electoral College people have a better chance of having their voices heard. That is how Trump was elected rather than Hillary (for better or worse). It was clear that most people in middle America didn’t want Hilary as president.

            1. Dude, California has 39 million folks out of 325 million Americans, giving it about 12% of the population. It has 55 electoral votes out of 538 electoral votes, giving it about 10% of the electoral votes.

              So if California isn’t controlling all-elections now, it probably wouldn’t under a national popular vote.

              And again, no, the Electoral College doesn’t mean that “people” have a “better chance of having their voices heard”, because the gross majority of the population doesn’t live in swing states. Not in a swing state? Then your voice doesn’t matter.

              Fact is, by prioritizing “winner takes all” at the state level, the Electoral College silences way more voices then it empowers. Clearly you like that because you like the results, but don’t try and pretend it’s ideologically better.

              It was clear that most people in middle America didn’t want Hilary as president.
              Just like it was clear that even more Americans didn’t want Trump as president.

              1. I love it when people pretend that California isn’t really two states jammed together with all the power delegated to the outsized city centers. It’s only a problem when blue votes get suppressed, though. Those rural California voters are more than happy to be railroaded I’m sure.


              2. Just like it was clear that even more Americans didn’t want Trump as president.

                Wrong, but I’ll you to figure out where your logical flaw is.

              3. Oh, and lest we forget, democracy is a cancer. Saying a system is better because it’s more democratic is false at face value.

                1. It’s only a problem when blue votes get suppressed, though. Those rural California voters are more than happy to be railroaded I’m sure.
                  Nope. Suppressing Red votes in Blue states and Blue votes in Red states and not-red/blue votes in all states is also a problem. Kind of why I consistently advocate for different systems that allow minority voices to still get representation.

                  Oh, and lest we forget, democracy is a cancer. Saying a system is better because it’s more democratic is false at face value.
                  As the saying goes, Democracy is the worst government event invented. Excepting, of course, all the rest.


                  1. As the saying goes, Democracy is the worst government event invented. Excepting, of course, all the rest.

                    False, because a Democratic Republic is a form of government which has been invented and it is demonstrably superior. At least if you at all value stability and rule of law, or even property rights that is.

                    If all that matters to you is that the most people get what they perceive to be what they want, I suppose you’d be right but it wouldn’t be the society that most actual ‘democrats’ think it would be.

                    It is, in fact, two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Nothing more, and nothing less.

              4. *It was clear that most people in middle America didn’t want Hilary as president.
                Just like it was clear that even more Americans didn’t want Trump as president.*

                There’s no such thing as “Americans”. There’s 50 separate states that work together and each one gets an apportioned share of the vote. Just because 99% of California wants to vote for the same candidate, tough shit, it doesn’t count for more.

                Get it through your thick head and stop prattling on about things which you know next to nothing.

        2. The most democratic system would likely be for other states to follow what Maine and Nebraska do (and what states generally did in the early republic), dividing electoral votes up by congressional district with the additional two for statewide winner. That ends up making large states like California, Texas, and New York into effectively purple states and requires different and more widespread tactics of campaigning (a Republican putting up ads in NYC is suddenly worthwhile because of the votes he can get in Long Island, for example).

    3. Re: Tony,

      Trump is so incredibly insane that he’s defying poli-sci geekdom that says that a rutabaga could win reelection with these economic numbers.

      Perhaps but there is an underlying perception that a Triump government is more favorable to business operation and creation than a Hillary government, which partly explains the enthusiasm. For instance, Trump’s efforts to reduce regulation increases the optimism level for most business owners who have to deal with DMV-style aggravation whenever they file something with the State. So I have to concede that, in part, the economy is doing better today because Trump is at the help rather than Hillary, but that doesn’t mean we’re staving off a major correction.

      What isn’t said enough is that neither Trump nor Congressional Republicans have ever had majority support from Americans

      That is true, and is mostly the Republicans fault. They are too ambivalent about fiscal responsibility and personal freedoms, making them seem like hypocrites whenever they pay lip service to free markets and reduced spending, for instance, or criminal justice reform, drug legalization and legal immigration.

      1. “… because Trump is at the helm rather than Hillary…”

        Sorry. Need more coffee.

    4. though I concede that perhaps running a child fucker in Alabama doesn’t help test any general case of a partisan wave.

      Weird how those women all disappeared on December 13th, no?

      Allegations, accusations…..all gone.

      1. Before the election he was a senate candidate who was a creep. Today he’s just an unemployed creep.

        There might be a reason one of those got news articles, and the other doesn’t.

        1. You’d think if the media really cared there’d be a blurb about it somewhere.

          1. You know what else we haven’t heard about lately? Clinton’. It’s amazing how coverage of “Benghazi”, her “e-mails”, “lock her up” and so-on shrivled up and died the moment she lost the election. Sure, she still gets an occasional article, but it’s nowhere near what we were getting in the run-up to the election when there were multiple breatheless articles a day talking about this or that and how she was a witch and a murderer and so-on.

            Take Mitt Romney, for crying out loud. After he lost in 2012, he quietly moved back to Utah and has barely been seen in the papers since then. But suddenly when there’s a possibility he’s going to run for the senate, suddenly he gets a couple of articles in as many days after years of nothing.

            So I’m not sure what you think the “media” is supposed to “care” about, but I’ll tell you what they do care about: eyeballs on screens. And people care a lot more about candidates then they do losers.

            1. Another thing we haven’t heard about, which seems to haunt Welch in his dreams, is the Las Vegas shooting.

            2. It’s amazing how coverage of “Benghazi”, her “e-mails”, “lock her up” and so-on shrivled up and died the moment she lost the election.

              Try again you retarded faggot.

            3. *You know what else we haven’t heard about lately? Clinton’.*

              You haven’t heard about her because she’s busy burning evidence at the ol’ homestead in Chappaqua.

              Until then, you couldn’t avoid hearing about her because she wouldn’t shut her damned mouth and the leftist media wouldn’t stop sticking microphones in front of it.

  18. We all throwing out predictions?

    Sure, I’ll throw in my hat. Here’s my ranked predictions in order of which I find most likely.

    (1) 50% Finishes term, does not seek second term.
    (2) 30% Finishes term, seeks second term and wins.
    (3) 21% Finishes term, seeks second term and loses.
    (4) 5% Resigns for medical reasons
    (5) 3% Impeached
    (6) 1% Assassinated

    1. 110% of the time it works every time.

  19. Wasn’t there a book maker in England who paid off bets early that Hillary would win? Something like a million dollars?

  20. Here is my perspective.

    Trump is a douche bag. He has been very effective so far, and done great things for America. I prefer a douche bag who does the right thing versus an evil cabal run by Hillary Clinton whose only aim is to control the levers of power.

    The left has been whining and acting like an arm of the Soviet Union since the election. The Democrats were the ones colluding with Russia via Fusion-GPS. The lefty media, that is most of the media, has been on a whirl wind tour of collusion with Putin to discredit a fairly won election. The left is openly racist, and a great many Americans like that very much. The left wants a prostrate, impoverished class of voters dependent on government as long as their elite gets to ride in a limousine and pretend to be caring. The left is doing its best to destroy America, out of spite: “If we can’t have it, we will just burn it down”.

    Trump is certainly no saint, but he is immeasurably better than Hillary/Elizabeth/Bernie.

    I think Americans will put Trump back in office in 2020 because the alternative is a pack of racist socialists.

    1. *The left has been whining and acting like an arm of the Soviet Union since the election”

      More like “since 1917”.

  21. The LP won when its single 1972 electoral vote struck down the last of the Comstock Laws in Roe v Wade and the growth of Federal Government personnel stopped after 1972. We win every year soldiers aren’t conscripted, and every time a state legalizes plant leaves the federal government wants men with guns to ban. Losers are those mystical bigots and smarmy socialists who lose because the LP got more votes than the other looters beat them by. This spoiler vote tripping up of the more totalitarian of two looter candidates lets voter preferences speed the transition to freedom. Like prices, libertarian party votes are an unequivocal source of consistent voter preferences–as opposed to package deals. Integrity–voting for the freedom you value–works!

    1. Which supreme court justice in 1972 was appointed by a libertarian president again?

      Take your pills Hihn.

  22. Libertarian party needs someone with charisma to deliver the message. With the rules and the entrenched parties they won’t win a presidential election any time soon. That does not make it futile. With it being very clear that voters from both major parties are disgruntled, it leaves an opening to win some over. A libertarian that can win 5% or more of the vote is enough to sway an election. That means libertarian policies will get a listen in the public debate.
    Remember the statists have been working for nearly 100 years to defeat liberty, it won’t be won back in short order or in one election.

    1. A libertarian will never get 5 percent. If they are that popular, voters will realize they are a spoiler candidate and not vote for them.

      A libertarian could get 40 percent and win though. At that point they become viable (like Ross Perot).


  23. Win or lose, he added, Libertarians will remind Americans about basic principles we have in common: “The rights of the individual, the right to free speech, to keep and bear arms, limitations on the powers of government. We want a right to live our life and pursue happiness any way we choose?as long as we don’t hurt other people and don’t take their stuff.

    If any of those things were things that everyone had in common, there would be no Libertarian party at all.

    1. Considering that the actual nominees for the libertarian party were both very strongly in favor of gun control, of speech restrictions, of head scarf bans for Muslims, of compulsory commerce, of religious tests for public office, of a sweeping new federal VAT with no concomitant reform of the current federal tax structure, and of humanitarian wars, I’d say maybe libertarians should start by figuring out what exactly it is they have in common with themselves, let alone everyone else.

  24. http://http://users.bestweb.ne…..tical.html & read the essays linked from the bottom bullets.

  25. Sorry, http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/political.html & read the essays linked from the bottom bullets.

    1st in at least a long time I Sugar-Freed.

  26. His biggest competition among Democrats is, surprisingly, California Senator Kamala Harris. She has a 7 percent chance. Then Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. (Hillary Clinton ranks even lower: just 2 percent.)

    I can believe Harris would have a chance. But Warren is worse than Clinton (every time they campaigned together, Clinton’s poll numbers dropped), Bernie will be too old, and Biden has the charisma of a bus bench.

  27. So very much depends on how the Mueller investigation and whether it comes to some type of spectacular climax that soon leads to a Constitutional crisis, or winds down. I anticipate it will end with process charges filed left and right, no proof of collusion, and a HUGE Trump administration investigative counter-attack on the Clinton email cover-up, her pay for play abuse of the State Department, and the role of the Obama administration and the DNC in trying to destroy the president-elect on the basis of the overwhelmingly fraudulent dossier (even to the extent of totally abusing the NSA’s supposedly limited powers to wiretap whomever.)

    In other words, an all-out political war will explode. Frankly, I am a long-time active Republican and I don’t see many of my colleagues who are going to abandon this beleaguered president. We all believe a Deep State exists and it has nastily done things that need to be exposed and punished. We will see to it and all the dominant media stonewalling and propaganda distractions in the world will not prevail against our determination.

    Besides all that, any POTUS always gets reflexive public support if the world explodes into truly dangerous wars and the White House team seems to handle it all adequately. Woodrow Wilson and FDR stumbled and slid into two world wars and the public forgave them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.