With the new records being set today on US markets, looks like Moody's will be right, Trump will win
I know all the Trump haters will discount the Moody's Presidential models but in all three Trump wins. Sorry TDS sufferers. New record on S&P 500, blew through 27,000 again on the Dow and a China deal on the way. Good luck winning at the ballot box!
Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/moodys-trump-on-his-way-to-an-easy-2020-win-if-economy-holds-up.html
Replies to: With the new records being set today on US markets, looks like Moody's will be right, Trump will win
Not a fan on model prediction, but the median household income increase under Trump is $5,000, under
Obama (8 years) is $975, under Bush (8 years) is $800. The number is before inflation adjusted though, but it doesn't include $2,000 tax cut. After adjusting the inflation, i.e. the real median household incomes of the past 4 presidents are , let's pick peak year's number during their presidency:
$61,526, 1999 (Clinton)
$60,985, 2007 (Bush)
$61,779, 2016 (Obama)
$63,179, 2018 (Trump)
So, from Clinton to Bush, the median household income dropped by $541. From Bush to Obama, it increased by $794. From Obama to Trump, it increased by $1,400 so far., and we all know the number of 2019 will be even better than 2018.
Link: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
Any one of a gazzilion possible black swans might occur in the next 12 months
It does help a lot that we are energy independent.
Trump is a Black Swan.
He may be immune to their bite.
There can not be a mention of Black Swan...without honoring Portman Kunis United.
(no message)
Portman Kunis United, football? No I’d rather watch them together in bed in the Black Swan
(no message)
Um, yeah. Hence the scissoring reference...
(no message)
I see now a little slow on the uptake today.
(no message)
More like an ugly ducking who never grew up
(no message)
Even right wing war monster John Bolton drew the line at treason, while Barr wants to indict Don's
accusers while shielding himself.
What evidence do you have of this? Fake news.
(no message)
The couple at the kitchen table in middle America with more money don’t give a rats ass
(no message)
Another JV post. Americans will recognize treason when they televise the hearings.
(no message)
Can't wait!
(no message)
You're way past deflection Ned, and headlong into denial.
(no message)
What denial is there in hoping Dems finally remove veil of secrecy & start broadcasting hearings?
I'm willing to expose all on both sides, and let the chips fall where they may. Are you?
521's world is starting to make no sense.
(no message)
Can't wait to hear how Bolton is a Democrat plant or whatever other nonsense is spun.
(no message)
Yet, you have no evidence that Bolton will do what you fantasize about, do you Bucky?
(no message)
Then why do 55% want to impeach and remove?
Biden will smoke him if he gets nominated.
You don’t seriously buy those polls do you?
Nobody in Ohio is talking about impeachment.
Guarantee you they are especially when asked the question.
(no message)
More likely they hang up if they are against impeachment.
(no message)
Oh I think they voice that opinion.
(no message)
I doubt it. They would risk being identified and targeted.
You underestimate the chilling of free speech which the Left has achieved. Are there die-hard rally attendees who will speak regardless?...sure. But most Trump voters are silent.
Oh please, such a drama queen. There are tens of thousands of them at his rallies.
Where I live he is quite popular.
It's not the diehards who are hard to count. It's the majority like me, who don't attend rallies.
The people like me who see no personal advantage, and only disadvantage, to answering poll questions over the phone.
Then again, I also turn off my phone location services most of the time. I value privacy more than most.
There are the same amount of non fans who don’t answer either.
Point is impeachment is no longer just a fringe idea that doesn’t have popular support. I still oppose it though.
Disagree. Regardless, no legitimate basis to impeach, so doing so would only help Trump.
(no message)
Under your rules, plenty of legit basis. Also, support has been growing for it.
(no message)
That’s why their sampling’s are BS
(no message)
I would think 2016 should have taught you about polling. Ask President Hillary
(no message)
The national polling in 2016 was very close to the actual results.
Yer act and his is wearing thin fast.
I’m actually a good actor. But at 5pm on Election Day what percent did The Times have?
It was above 80% that Hillary would win. It started collapsing to 50% by 9:30.
There was not one poll predicting Trump would win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. There were numerous polls that had him behind in Florida, N Carolina, even Iowa. Many predicted Hillary would win better than 340 electoral votes
So spin your truth somewhere else Frankie.
Oh by the way, what was the demographic run down of your 55% and do those people vote? I could probably get you 55% approval that you will win the next Nobel Peace Prize with the right sampling.
Reading is fundamental. Yes, the state polling was off. The NATIONAL polling was not.
These are also national polls.
Why bother to poll nationally, it’s states that elect the President
(no message)
All major issues are polled nationally.
(no message)
Truth
(no message)
Too bad Trump Year 1 can't repeat itself.
1st 12 months of Trump's Presidency (Jan 17 to Jan 18): DOW up 32% = Great
in the 22 months since (Jan 18 to Oct 19): DOW up 3.0% = Not Great
As Sun Tzu in The Art of War attack when you are strongest. The trade war with China if won will
be Trump’s legacy along with the Supreme’s
If you would have only timed the roller coaster you would have been golden.
(no message)
No kidding.
No question there have been some decent ups and downs the last 22 months.
How are all those indictments your buddy promised us coming?
(no message)
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh, oh, oh bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
Oh man, you are the ultimate liberal. Not even a smidgen of embarrassment on your part when you dare to utter those words. Not a smidgen.
That's the third poster saying that kind of thing. I don't get it.
Were there indictments?
I think there will be some, but not of anyone significant. Of all the people involved in the investigation, someone somewhere likely cut corners. But, as I understand it, there won't be anything that contradicts the findings in the Mueller report. I am not aware of evidence relied upon by Mueller that is in question.
I'll let Baron respond, but I remember anti-Trumpers predicting indictments that never came
Bombshell this. Bombshell that. sealed indictments everywhere. Sure, some indictments came, but not for what they were predicting (collusion/conspiracy). And the indictments that did come seemed to just be official coercion, since they seemed a bit selective (dependent on party affiliation).
And I don’t remember promising indictments
(no message)
No self awareness.
(no message)
Just a tad ironic.
(no message)
Like rain on your wedding day
(no message)
It's a free ride...when you've already paid...
(no message)
Tad Ironic is my Ron Mexico.
(no message)
Excellent, but still that is no “Pierre Delecto”.
(no message)
Any day now. With a NY Times piece defending Clapper and Brennan today its just a matter of time
(no message)
Right, because that is totally how indictments work.
(no message)
If we learned anything about the MSM they protect their own
(no message)
trump wins because there is no one else : ( >
i'd run but i ain' got the $$$
O~