Make America Great Pumpkin has demonstrated that “Existential threats” always seem dire around election day, and as it gets closer everyone needs to reassess their own position on GOTV, and of course get concerned about voter eligibility. These are at least reasonable worries, rather than losing your jewels because your Paris apartment has poor security.
The NRA is currently running an ad that seems to suggest that not voting for Trump will endanger women (presumably those suburban women Trump needs). No one is safe, even in France
One hopes that there will be no mischief from within or without, but that in some ways, is a price of an actual rather than idealized democracy. Darn that de Tocqueville guy.
This election cycle now makes everyone fear all kinds of real or imagined evil doers, ranging from a crashing global economy, to skeevy character attacks, or even to #BLM graffiti artists on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Despite these fears, one should not vote because one is intimidated by: the fear of a draft, the fear of terrorists, the fear of heathens/infidels, or even the fear of socialists/communists.
One needs to GOTV because it is all about the great adventure of democracy, not because some giant orange squash and his infantile minions make us fear for that pluralism.
The existential fear might not even be the fear of being poor, homeless, or even the return to whatever bad days existed before, racism, sexism, classism, ageism, or whatever.
The real fear could very well be all of them all at once this time. Or not. Darn that FDR and that “fear itself” meme.
We may have to rent the nice apartment over the meth lab because we have no other choice but to flee to Canada. Darn that immigration meme.
You may not approve of everything Mr. Trump has had to say about nuclear weapons, torture or mass deportations, but you doubt he could implement anything too radical. Congress, the courts, the Constitution — these would keep Mr. Trump in check, you think.
Well, think again. A President Trump could, unilaterally, change this country to its core. By remaking U.S. relations with other nations, he could fundamentally reshape the world, too.
There is a bottom line, one that could bring the nation back to every economic failure before 2007-2008. More importantly, it could be global and even universal.
Wall Street fears a Trump presidency. Stocks may lose 10 to 12 percent of their value if he wins the November election, and there may be a broader economic downturn.
These conclusions arise from close analysis of financial markets during Monday’s presidential debate, which provides a fascinating case study of the complex interconnections between American politics and economics. The market’s judgment stands in sharp opposition to Donald J. Trump’s claims that his presidency would be good for business.
Decoding these market signals is no easy task because it is difficult to disentangle correlation from causation. Ideally we would observe stock prices in parallel universes with identical economic conditions, with a single exception: In one, Mr. Trump has a good shot at becoming president, while in the other, his chances are low…
How much better would the market perform under a President Clinton than a President Trump?
Consider the rise in stock futures. At first blush, an increase of less than 1 percent doesn’t sound like much. But it points to something much bigger. After all, if a relatively small decline in the likelihood of a Trump presidency led to a modest stock rally, then a larger decline in Mr. Trump’s electoral fortunes would most likely lead to a larger market reaction. A surprise win for Mr. Trump would probably set off a substantial market correction.
We can be a bit more precise. According to political prediction markets, the odds of a Trump presidency fell by nearly six percentage points during the debate. By contrast, the difference between a certain Trump loss and a certain Trump win — by definition, a 100-percentage-point change in probability — is around 16 times as large as that six-percentage-point drop. It follows that the difference in the value of stocks under a President Clinton versus a President Trump is 16 times as large as Monday night’s stock market shift.
Putting the pieces together (multiplying that 16 by the percentage point rise in the S.&P. 500 value), this suggests that the market expects stock prices to be 10 to 12 percent lower if Mr. Trump wins than they will be if he loses.
This is a big difference.
What does it all mean? When economists conduct “event studies” like this, they typically do so in the hope that movements in stock prices reflect the informed bets of traders trying to assess the future profitability of the businesses they’re buying or selling. If that’s right, then Wall Street is telling us that if Mr. Trump is elected, it expects the profitability of America’s largest businesses to be about 10 to 12 percent lower on average in the future.
This is all the more remarkable because it occurs despite Mr. Trump’s having promised an enormous profit-raising corporate tax cut. Either the markets don’t believe he’ll deliver on these tax cuts, or they believe that the rest of his economic program will do enough harm to more than offset the benefits of lower taxes.
Unfortunately, an event study is silent as to what’s behind Wall Street’s fears. This sort of adverse market reaction might reflect concerns about Mr. Trump’s unconventional approach to the Federal Reserve, worries about a possible trade war, fiscal irresponsibility, apprehension about national security or simply the cost of greater uncertainty.
The wager is between the RWNJs’ view of millennials and a negative perception of Bubba’s behavior as sexual violence about which millennials might be more critical and even intelligible to Gen-Y or Gen-Z, even. Darn that data journalism, aggregating information from everywhere.
The surprisingly logical reason Donald Trump is bringing up Bill Clinton’s sex scandals
This trend suggests that the Trump campaign has assigned a specific role for the candidate’s attacks on Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct. They’re not deployed right off the bat, or in TV ads, but only as damage control in response to questions about his own record of mistreating women.
The best explanation we have is twofold.
- First, the Trump campaign thinks public perceptions around the scandals like those surrounding Bill Clinton have changed in a way that might make that history extremely damaging to the Clintons’ reputation with millennials — if those millennials are briefed on what happened.
- Second, they view making the conversation about Bill as an effective way to deflect the many, many allegations of sexism against Trump that this campaign has brought to light.
A photo posted by The Daily Show (@thedailyshow) on Sep 27, 2016 at 11:23am PDT