Who do you think is going to win and why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter graduated this past summer with a 3.95 GPA in physics at at top 15 University. If my daughter decides to be President I will campaign for her nonstop. If Ivanka decides to run Mr Trump will be her biggest cheerleader.

So all you dumb and stupid men out there saying sexist things acting sexists (with many of you with smart daughters just like mine) and saying you can't vote for a woman do me a favour record yourself and play it to your daughter. Your own master Mr Trump will call you dumb and imbecile if you tell him Ivanka cant run because she is a woman. Oh maybe I forgot a woman in a Trump orbit is acceptable? Do you realize how dumb you all are

I don't understand the words

But she has a daughter with a 3.95 GPA in physics. Not sure I’d be boasting about that, lol.

A 3.95 GPA in physics is impressive. It seems like you are making light of the achievement. I double majored in physics and English lit, and, at least for me, physics was far more challenging.

[Anonymous]

I think it will be Trump. The democrats needed a different candidate, but Harris was viable for a while. Waltz was a poor choice. I think the far left has scared people and there will be a wave of rebellion against the new wokism which isn't in alignment with true progressive ideals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No doubt Harris. It will be close but I think women between the ages of 18 and 25 are going to vote in massive numbers that the polls are not capturing. You can count on women to show up. Men, it depends on our mood that day? Our sense of urgency is very different from women's and it's attributed to biology.

Your theory isn’t showing up in early voting data. Most voters so far are older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it will be Trump. The democrats needed a different candidate, but Harris was viable for a while. Waltz was a poor choice. I think the far left has scared people and there will be a wave of rebellion against the new wokism which isn't in alignment with true progressive ideals.

Sorry Walz-got 4 screens opened and am not a good multi-tasker

[Anonymous]

DJT stock up 25% since NY rally. It’s happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Economist here. Not a political scientist but if I were a gambling gal and had to put my money down, you can rarely go wrong with, "It's the economy, stupid." as a predictor. So I'd have to put my money on Trump as the winner.

The price of groceries is killing a lot of lower and middle-income families. The latest data on FHA loan delinquency and credit card delinquency is actually quite scary. I make good money and am thankful for that, so I can absorb it, but my blood pressure still rises when I have to pay $7 for a three pack of cucumbers. Chuck roast has gone from mid $4/lb to $6.95 at Costco.

I can't even imagine how frightening the grocery bills are for some young couples just starting in their careers. I remember the early days of married life and entry-level salaries and there were stressful days and sleepless nights. I don't regret it. It's a rite of passage to struggle and save when young and build a nest egg for your golden years, but that was in the boom years of the 90s. Thinking about going through that with grocery prices now literally makes me feel sick.

My analysis of whether Biden/Harris are to blame for the inflation is mostly "yes". She cast the deciding vote on a lot of spending, and that's inflationary for sure.

Trump will inherit an economy of delinquent bills and will be falsely blamed for a coming recession. However, if he exacerbates the situation with tariffs - that's his own stupid fault.

So would Trump or Harris be better for the economy, concretely?

You're replying to me. My crystal ball is hazy. All I know is that the mounting consumer debt is very worrisome. I don't think we're out of the woods for a recession, and as a federal employee with a secure job it's a selfish thing to say, but a downturn would at least break the inflation even more. But that's selfish because I know it's happening due to lots of people without guaranteed jobs falling on very hard times and having to spend far less. It's going to be a bitter pill to swallow. Anecdotally, I'm already seeing it when I walk around and check prices on luxury goods and hobby purchases like RVs, hot tubs, high-end barbeque grills, wristwatches, etc. That's the first thing to go. Then people working in those industries get laid off. Then it trickles down to hospitality and restaurant workers, and it just snowballs from there.

I have moved all of my TSP "S" small cap holdings to "C" on the premise that the S&P 500 firms will weather the storm better, but I'm too young to be holding any short-term stuff. Just keep buying C fund stocks through any crash, and thank heavens I don't work in private industry. They make a lot more than me in boom times, but I'm always happy to be in a more risk averse career when the busts happen. I'd rather live in a smaller house but know I'll always have a roof over my head and two reliable cars.

My best guess is Trump will be decidedly better for the economy, but he's got to be careful with the tariff talk. It's hazy what he plans to do there, but not as worrisome to me as Harris' even more ill-defined comments about cutting costs and "corporate greed". Keep government the hell away from the supply/demand equilibrium point. Trump at least has considerable, real-world experience in business. Harris sounds like she never took microeconomics 101 and doesn't understand the first thing about how a firm works. She buys into this mythology of the "evil rich" and the "greedy corporations" who don't pay their fair share. That's just pandering to the ignorant voters on the Left the same way Trump also panders to ignorance, but I find her pandering to be more scary from a financial perspective.

You're a pretty sh!tty economist. Economists generally hate tariffs and 16 Nobel Prize-winning economists warn that Trump's economic plans could reignite inflation. They've been saying ad nauseam that he'd be terrible for the economy.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-economy-nobel-prize-winners-letter-inflation-warning/

[Anonymous]

There will be no tariffs. It's just hot air. People sometimes forget that Trump was president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which Cuomo are we supposed to believe?

The MAGA Cuomo above?

Or the Cuomo who correctly described Trump as a divisive demagogue?

Or maybe his wildly opposing opinions just cancel each other out and we no longer listen to Cuomo.

Cuomo is is not FOR Trump in that clip. He's explaining what drives Trump voters. I don't think this is particularly groundbreaking stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After yesterday’s MSG spectacle my money’s on Harris.

+1, that was not a display of a winning campaign. It looked desperate and sad.

Also even though pools are super tight there are signs Harris has momentum with both GOTV and getting late deciders. If that holds true in the close races she wins, very simple.

It's been the case since she entered the race, it's just a waiting game. Everything the Trump campaign has done is a half-measure that betrays their understanding: he is the once and future loser.

Wow, so Harris hasn’t moved the needle despite the huge cash infusions, free publicity and multiple endorsements?


What does that tell us?

What needle? The polling needle that's been wrong for almost a decade?

The only needle that matters is Election Day/when the votes are counted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump

Based on polling. He’s doing better than he did against Clinton and Biden. He beat Clinton and lost to Biden by a millimeter.

If you think that Biden beat Trump by a millimeter, than you must realize that Trump beat Clinton by a micrometer.

2016 Trump had 62.9M (46.1%) to Clinton's 65.8M (48.2%). He lost the popular vote by 2.9M votes (2.1%)
2016 Trump won the electoral college 304-227

2020 Trump had 74.2M (46.8%) to Biden's 81.3M (51.3%). He lost the popular vote by 7M votes (4.5%)
2020 Biden won the electoral college by 306-232

Biden beat Trump by wider measures in 2020 than Trump beat Clinton. You can minimize his defeat by calling it a mm. But then his win 4 years before was even smaller.

THIS. Trump is not and has never been popular. And he certainly isn't more popular now than in 2016.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris. A lot of the people I know who voted for Trump before are now voting for Harris. I do not think you can count of reliable Republican voters.

Are they just saying that?

I still think there are numerous closet trump voters + genz males+ low propensity voters that show up and show out for the cult + Hispanic voters = trump win. There are more of them in swing states than there are disenfranchised republicans.

Buckle up, we are whitnessing the true end of the US as a free country and world super power.

Why would they bother to hide their intention now? That makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will be no tariffs. It's just hot air. People sometimes forget that Trump was president.

Oh right, all the vile, bigoted, racist, misogynist, and hateful stuff is just *hot air.* He didn't drain the swamp (otherwise he would have his cabinet and staff backing), nor did he build a wall. He didn't solve anything, and was the biggest spreader of misinformation on Covid.

So, if he's just puffing out *hot air* why vote for him? He didn't even have a platform in 2020, so just vote for his whims?

To many, that is the definition of insanity!

[Anonymous]

I’m not a gambler, but I’d wager on Harris.
She may only squeak by…
But if there is any sort of “wave” or landslide, it will be for democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once again polling is way off, especially with regard to women.

Women are gonna bring this victory home for Harris.

Lol. Women voted for the sexual predator against Hillary. There is no reason to think they won't do it again.
The women that think abortion is a huge issue are already voting Democrat. The other women just do not care about that topic

Trump has driven away many votes since 2016 and 2020. And there is a new crop of young voters out there. I know My young Harris supporters are ready and excited to vote for her in their first presidential election.

He hasn't driven away a single vote. You literally just made that up

So why did he lose in 2020?

And and Dobbs had not happened in 2020. The insurrection had not happened in 2020. This guy just does not know how to attract voters. He seems hell-bent on driving them away.

Actually he does. He has always appealed to his base, which is primarily white, conservative, Christian men. In 2020, he scored a lower percentage of this base than he had in 2016. And he is polling lower, percentage-wise, in that demographic than he did in 2020. So he's had a slow trickle of his base away from him since 2016. And so, his messaging the last few months has been to his base. He is trying to reconnect and reestablish the support of the white conservative men.

In 2020, he increased his absolute numbers of the base by GOTV and getting 7M more Republicans registered and voting for him. He's not likely to get that response from new voters this cycle, so he is focusing on getting more of his base demographic to "return to the fold". So, his rallies have been focused on bringing white male voters that have been defecting back. Hence the increase in racist and sexist catcalls and the ramp up of repudiation for LGBTQ+. In fact, this is one of smart moves. He can't get out the vote, so he has to turn the votes to his cause and the white male votes that have drifted away from his camp seems to be the best target to attract for the least amount of effort.

This is a good analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once again polling is way off, especially with regard to women.

Women are gonna bring this victory home for Harris.

Lol. Women voted for the sexual predator against Hillary. There is no reason to think they won't do it again.
The women that think abortion is a huge issue are already voting Democrat. The other women just do not care about that topic

Trump has driven away many votes since 2016 and 2020. And there is a new crop of young voters out there. I know My young Harris supporters are ready and excited to vote for her in their first presidential election.

He hasn't driven away a single vote. You literally just made that up

So why did he lose in 2020?

And and Dobbs had not happened in 2020. The insurrection had not happened in 2020. This guy just does not know how to attract voters. He seems hell-bent on driving them away.

Actually he does. He has always appealed to his base, which is primarily white, conservative, Christian men. In 2020, he scored a lower percentage of this base than he had in 2016. And he is polling lower, percentage-wise, in that demographic than he did in 2020. So he's had a slow trickle of his base away from him since 2016. And so, his messaging the last few months has been to his base. He is trying to reconnect and reestablish the support of the white conservative men.

In 2020, he increased his absolute numbers of the base by GOTV and getting 7M more Republicans registered and voting for him. He's not likely to get that response from new voters this cycle, so he is focusing on getting more of his base demographic to "return to the fold". So, his rallies have been focused on bringing white male voters that have been defecting back. Hence the increase in racist and sexist catcalls and the ramp up of repudiation for LGBTQ+. In fact, this is one of smart moves. He can't get out the vote, so he has to turn the votes to his cause and the white male votes that have drifted away from his camp seems to be the best target to attract for the least amount of effort.

This is a good analysis.

Except that he won't be able to accomplish anything of value for white males or anybody else and a lot of them aren't dumb enough to think that he will.