Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

So what? I never claimed that Trump was beating Obama's numbers or Reagan's for that matter.

I have always maintained that Trump is getting 313 EV at minimum- and that's what's coming.

But you *did* say Trump would have a landslide victory. I don't think anyone would characterize Obama's wins as landslides--certainly not his second--so how can President Trump win in a "landslide" if he doesn't even match Obama's numbers?

I've said repeatedly that Trump *does* have a chance to win. A win is the most that you should be calling for, not a landslide. And a win would be more than sufficient.

*ahem* wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

So what? I never claimed that Trump was beating Obama's numbers or Reagan's for that matter.

I have always maintained that Trump is getting 313 EV at minimum- and that's what's coming.

But you *did* say Trump would have a landslide victory. I don't think anyone would characterize Obama's wins as landslides--certainly not his second--so how can President Trump win in a "landslide" if he doesn't even match Obama's numbers?

I've said repeatedly that Trump *does* have a chance to win. A win is the most that you should be calling for, not a landslide. And a win would be more than sufficient.

1) He said Trump would have a landslide victory.

2) He said betting sites were good predictors of the election (might be true, but he said it as a statement in support of Trump winning).

3) He said Allan Lichtman was good to listen to. He has picked Biden to win.

4) He said IBD/TIPP was a good predictor...again, perhaps correct, but he said it as a statement in support of Trump winning.

5) He said Democrats wouldn't have the guts to impeach Trump.

6) He has said a lot of stupid sh!t.

*ahem* wrote:

*ahem* wrote:

Daily check of The Gap: currently back at 11.4 percentage points, up from 11.2 yesterday.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

And now DOWN to 10.6. That's a big drop in a day!

This could represent more of the volatility we've seen in recent days--or could be a harbinger of the tightened Gap that some of us have been expecting in the final days of the campaign.

IMO this one is going to be a nailbiter. I eschew predictions, and certainly won't put any money on it, but I'm a member of the 300 For Neither Club.

Still waiting on Mueller......

agip wrote:

L L wrote:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/investing/wall-street-election-trump-biden/index.html

I wanted to highlight this part of the article:

"Like seasoned poker players, investors will be searching for "tells" of a Democratic sweep that paves the way for trillions of dollars in federal spending that could boost the economy. That would likely boost stocks.

A win for President Trump could also be viewed as a positive for markets because it would remove the specter of higher taxes and regulation — and eliminate the risk of a contested election."

So, no matter who wins, stocks go up.

Very insightful.

markets hate unpredictabilty and surprises. When the election is over, unpredictability will be lessened and markets should rise. Regardless of who wins.

So, markets have historically risen immediately following presidential elections? Seems counterintuitive and contrary to basic notions of efficient markets.

Low energy. Sad. Wasn't this the same guy that questioned Hillary's stamina and physical toughness? BTW...it was roughly 50 degrees in Erie, PA at the time of the rally. Looks like the dexamethasone isn't working any longer.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1318720413459939329

Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:

Low energy. Sad. Wasn't this the same guy that questioned Hillary's stamina and physical toughness? BTW...it was roughly 50 degrees in Erie, PA at the time of the rally. Looks like the dexamethasone isn't working any longer.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1318720413459939329

And to think there are millions who will actually go watch this guy ramble in person... he's out there begging for votes. I don't know who is more pathetic, trump or his voters.

How can anybody in their right minds trust or believe anything that comes out of the trump swamp?

https://twitter.com/CraigSilverman/status/1318553596821123077?s=20

Why don't you feast on this instead biff?

https://twitter.com/SollenbergerRC/status/1318901174356029440?s=20

Just Wundrin wrote:

agip wrote:

markets hate unpredictabilty and surprises. When the election is over, unpredictability will be lessened and markets should rise. Regardless of who wins.

So, markets have historically risen immediately following presidential elections? Seems counterintuitive and contrary to basic notions of efficient markets.

history doesn't repeat exactly.

this is a much more binary election than usual. Trumpism vs Normal and Predictable.

Add in trump's wishes to arrest biden and his refusal to accept results, and it gets weird.

Most elections we know who will win, and most elections the candidates aren't all that different from each other. So markets have less uncertainty.

The bellyaching continues... it's not called 45 minutes. Sure Mark, you'll release the tape and it will shock the world, lol.. the most credible people in the world.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1318916534287433729?s=20

*ahem* wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

So what? I never claimed that Trump was beating Obama's numbers or Reagan's for that matter.

I have always maintained that Trump is getting 313 EV at minimum- and that's what's coming.

But you *did* say Trump would have a landslide victory. I don't think anyone would characterize Obama's wins as landslides--certainly not his second--so how can President Trump win in a "landslide" if he doesn't even match Obama's numbers?

I've said repeatedly that Trump *does* have a chance to win. A win is the most that you should be calling for, not a landslide. And a win would be more than sufficient.

I actually called it #Trumplandslide. If he gets 60% or more of the EV or 323+ that would be enough.

#Trumplandslide

"Four more years!"

KAG2020

agip wrote:

Just Wundrin wrote:

So, markets have historically risen immediately following presidential elections? Seems counterintuitive and contrary to basic notions of efficient markets.

history doesn't repeat exactly.

this is a much more binary election than usual. Trumpism vs Normal and Predictable.

Add in trump's wishes to arrest biden and his refusal to accept results, and it gets weird.

Most elections we know who will win, and most elections the candidates aren't all that different from each other. So markets have less uncertainty.

Like many of us said years ago, the delusion comes from people not seeing 2016 as a one-off result. At the end of the day, it was lying trump with Putin's help vs an extremely disliked HRC with the FBI tarnishing her.

um...538 just put the GA senator race (the Loeffler seat) in the blue column.

This one's weird. it is a primary, with the general held in January. Unless someone gets 50%.

This could be huge for the future of the nation. To get another blue senator, esp in a confederate state. Wow.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/senate/

runnerxmantheory wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

1) He said Trump would have a landslide victory.

2) He said betting sites were good predictors of the election (might be true, but he said it as a statement in support of Trump winning).

3) He said Allan Lichtman was good to listen to. He has picked Biden to win.

4) He said IBD/TIPP was a good predictor...again, perhaps correct, but he said it as a statement in support of Trump winning.

5) He said Democrats wouldn't have the guts to impeach Trump.

6) He has said a lot of stupid sh!t.

Still waiting on Mueller......

Ok. Good to know.

Trump is screwed based on investigations that were spawned from the Mueller investigation.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

The above in bold has never stopped being true.

Just Wundrin wrote:

agip wrote:

markets hate unpredictabilty and surprises. When the election is over, unpredictability will be lessened and markets should rise. Regardless of who wins.

So, markets have historically risen immediately following presidential elections? Seems counterintuitive and contrary to basic notions of efficient markets.

Yes. There is invariably a "President X bump" in the markets. The winning team typically crows about how its because there is great confidence in their guy, but it's just because the market hates uncertainty/unpredictability.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Here is my worst case scenario map for Trump.

https://www.270towin.com/

Your "worst case scenario map for Trump" has Biden getting 290 with another 85 tossup available, a landslide victory for Biden. Yeah, that would be a pretty bad scenario for Trump.

Flagpole wrote:

*ahem* wrote:

But you *did* say Trump would have a landslide victory.

1) He said Trump would have a landslide victory.

The Titanic went down in a "landslide" into a water grave. As will Trump.

Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:

Low energy. Sad. Wasn't this the same guy that questioned Hillary's stamina and physical toughness? BTW...it was roughly 50 degrees in Erie, PA at the time of the rally. Looks like the dexamethasone isn't working any longer.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1318720413459939329

This is an example of why I don't buy that he's a great salesman. A great salesman would never have disrespected his customers like that. He just basically told them that he couldn't have given two sh!ts about them except that he now needs something from them. You can tell that they weren't too happy about that. Trump wants others to love him, but he doesn't want to reciprocate. He is such a flawed human being.