|
United States10530 Posts
Ohio is gone. 82% and Trump has a 7 point lead. Biden needs to hold onto those northern states and now those districts are looking pretty juicy.
|
Definitely chose the wrong time to take a break from drinking.
|
On November 04 2020 12:48 Batmankills wrote:
Trump is up 8% in PA
Philly only reporting 22% though
|
Biden is going to do it, he’s going to manage to do the unthinkable and lose to Donald Trump I can feel it in my depression addled bones
|
If the % margin's hold for OH the Midwest looks locked up for Trump. He's out-performing his 2016 results. If the Dems can't beat Trump 2x it's not pretty. (And they're going to lose House seats and only net 1 Senate seat it looks like)
|
now, Trump is up 11 points in PA. is it happening?
|
|
|
On November 04 2020 12:50 Batmankills wrote:
now, Trump is up 11 points in PA. is it happening?
No. a TON of early vote is not counted yet
|
United States44205 Posts
On November 04 2020 12:48 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 12:45 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:42 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:37 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:35 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:32 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:28 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:20 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:17 Monochromatic wrote:I'm saying that despite the economy growing slower, his corporate tax cuts and pro-business policies allowed US corporations to match the valuation as in China. That's great, especially compared to the rest of the world. I think you're confused. Let's say you work on a farm. In year 1 the farm produces 100 units of grain. In year 2 the farm produces 102 grain. That's 2% growth in the output of the farm. What you're trying to argue is that how much grain the farm produces isn't what matters, what actually matters is how much a speculator would pay to buy the farm. But there's two issues with that. Firstly, you don't own the farm, you just work there, it doesn't make any difference to you how much the speculator thinks it's worth on a given day. And secondly, the only thing that matters at the farm is how much food it produces. An idea of how much it's worth will go up and down daily but will never feed a single person. If the farm is publicly traded, I can own it. With the rise of indexing the average person will probably own it in their 401k. Second, valuation is not purely speculation. Oftentimes there's competitive advantages that push a company above their peers. It's also a proxy to sentiment - the average investor agrees the USA is doing very, very well right now. You can own it, but the vast majority of Americans own a tiny fraction of US equities. But owning it doesn't change how much grain it produces. The rest is just bullshit. If you lower the cost of borrowing by pumping liquidity into the market, as the Fed has done, it triggers stock buybacks and the artificial inflation of equities. You've not actually created anything, you've just pumped up the market by printing cash. That's why real GDP growth is what Trump promised to deliver and why bullshit market valuations based on cheap credit isn't an acceptable substitute for it. I've been struggling with valuations since '08. You don't need to tell me the damage QE has done to the rational stock market. However, at the end of the day, it's something we have to live with, and take advantage of. The stock market going up has put money in my, as well as millions of other Americans, pocket. But it's not what you originally claimed. You claimed Trump delivered more GDP. Now you're saying that due to QE Trump has delivered higher valuations on the same GDP. Do you see why that's not proof of your original claim? No. I'm saying that despite lower GDP, we've managed to match China's market growth, and that the economy has been amazing - two separate thoughts. A large part of this (both the valuations and the economy) was the corporate tax cut, which was 100% Trump. US unemployment hit the lowest level for 50 years. Removing regulations has also supercharged the economy. To your point about fake buybacks and low rates, that's the QE. To the massive growth in SMEs, I award that to Trump's policies. If the growth was due to the tax cut then why did it start 8 years before the tax cut? That's a little silly. Sure, he inherited a growing economy. His policies turned it into a record-breaking one.
But he didn't. Look at the SP500 growth by year from 2009 to 2020. The numbers don't support your claim.
2009 - 23%
2010 - 13%
2011 - 0%
2012 - 13%
2013 - 30%
2014 - 11%
2015 - (1%)
2016 - 10%
2017 (Trump's first year) - 19%
2018 - (6%)
2019 (year in which the tax cuts took effect, funded by huge deficit spending) 29%
2020 4%
Trump performed less well, on average, than both Obama and Bill Clinton.
Which record do you think Trump broke on growth in valuations? He's in the bottom half of Presidents. He constantly tweets about it but the numbers simply don't support any conclusion but that the man is a liar.
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&1921=survey
|
Pennsylvania looks about as undecided as any state possibly could be at this point.
|
At this point polls were so wrong that I think Biden is toast. Trump gets another 4 years and I move to Ottawa
|
Did anyone bother to compare the results from that joeisdone website and the results reported by legit sources?
|
United States10530 Posts
On November 04 2020 12:53 Mohdoo wrote:
At this point polls were so wrong that I think Biden is toast. Trump gets another 4 years and I move to Ottawa
Canadian immigration page is gonna crash again this year.
|
I cannot wait for the next Democrat primary where they choose Kamala Harris or Buttigieg to run against a QAnoner.
America is just the best
|
I know that at this last election people were asking about the future of the Democratic party. What do you think the next four years will look like? Bernie's got one foot in the grave, Warren is getting up there in years, and their strategies are just not working.
Honestly I'm hoping Klobuchar steps up to the occasion.
|
On November 04 2020 12:55 Monochromatic wrote:
I know that at this last election people were asking about the future of the Democratic party. What do you think the next four years will look like? Bernie's got one foot in the grave, Warren is getting up there in years, and their strategies are just not working.
Honestly I'm hoping Klobuchar steps up to the occasion.
Pete is the future. Legit worst decision to force him to drop out to save Biden against Berndog
|
Democrats should disband their party in shame if they can’t manage to beat Donald Trump
|
|
|
On November 04 2020 12:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 12:48 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:45 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:42 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:37 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:35 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:32 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:28 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:20 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:17 Monochromatic wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying that despite the economy growing slower, his corporate tax cuts and pro-business policies allowed US corporations to match the valuation as in China. That's great, especially compared to the rest of the world. I think you're confused. Let's say you work on a farm. In year 1 the farm produces 100 units of grain. In year 2 the farm produces 102 grain. That's 2% growth in the output of the farm. What you're trying to argue is that how much grain the farm produces isn't what matters, what actually matters is how much a speculator would pay to buy the farm. But there's two issues with that. Firstly, you don't own the farm, you just work there, it doesn't make any difference to you how much the speculator thinks it's worth on a given day. And secondly, the only thing that matters at the farm is how much food it produces. An idea of how much it's worth will go up and down daily but will never feed a single person. If the farm is publicly traded, I can own it. With the rise of indexing the average person will probably own it in their 401k. Second, valuation is not purely speculation. Oftentimes there's competitive advantages that push a company above their peers. It's also a proxy to sentiment - the average investor agrees the USA is doing very, very well right now. You can own it, but the vast majority of Americans own a tiny fraction of US equities. But owning it doesn't change how much grain it produces. The rest is just bullshit. If you lower the cost of borrowing by pumping liquidity into the market, as the Fed has done, it triggers stock buybacks and the artificial inflation of equities. You've not actually created anything, you've just pumped up the market by printing cash. That's why real GDP growth is what Trump promised to deliver and why bullshit market valuations based on cheap credit isn't an acceptable substitute for it. I've been struggling with valuations since '08. You don't need to tell me the damage QE has done to the rational stock market. However, at the end of the day, it's something we have to live with, and take advantage of. The stock market going up has put money in my, as well as millions of other Americans, pocket. But it's not what you originally claimed. You claimed Trump delivered more GDP. Now you're saying that due to QE Trump has delivered higher valuations on the same GDP. Do you see why that's not proof of your original claim? No. I'm saying that despite lower GDP, we've managed to match China's market growth, and that the economy has been amazing - two separate thoughts. A large part of this (both the valuations and the economy) was the corporate tax cut, which was 100% Trump. US unemployment hit the lowest level for 50 years. Removing regulations has also supercharged the economy. To your point about fake buybacks and low rates, that's the QE. To the massive growth in SMEs, I award that to Trump's policies. If the growth was due to the tax cut then why did it start 8 years before the tax cut? That's a little silly. Sure, he inherited a growing economy. His policies turned it into a record-breaking one. But he didn't. Look at the SP500 growth by year from 2009 to 2020. The numbers don't support your claim. 2009 - 23% 2010 - 13% 2011 - 0% 2012 - 13% 2013 - 30% 2014 - 11% 2015 - (1%) 2016 - 10% 2017 (Trump's first year) - 19% 2018 - (6%) 2019 (year in which the tax cuts took effect, funded by huge deficit spending) 29% 2020 4% Trump performed less well, on average, than Obama. Which record do you think Trump broke on growth in valuations? He's in the bottom half of Presidents. He constantly tweets about it but the numbers simply don't support any conclusion but that the man is a liar. https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&1921=survey
17 was great, 18 ended on a major, but very short downturn, 19 was good, and 2020 is a pandemic. I think that's a quite good track record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
