tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-327935552024-02-20T10:28:42.796-05:00Flying Pink UnicornsFlying Pink UnicornsDaniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.comBlogger196125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-91896901994892553952020-10-24T11:48:00.002-04:002020-10-26T08:25:00.789-04:00<p>I predict the Democrats will take the Senate, holding 51 Senate seats when the new Congress convenes on 1/3/2021.</p><p>I predict the Democrats will lose a seat in Alabama and win GOP held seats in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina and Iowa. I predict Lindsey Graham will be reelected in South Carolina for the GOP by a tiny margin, perhaps in a recount. I predict the GOP will eventually hold both Senate seats up for election in Georgia (though the Democrats COULD win 1 or even both on a BIG Biden blowout win). There are other Democrat opportunities for pickups, notably Montana, but absent a Biden win by more than 10 points nationally I don't expect any of these to come to fruition. Finally, the GOP has 1 other longshot pickup opportunity in Michigan. I expect the Dem to win by about 5 points, not a sterling performance, but enough to keep his seat.</p><p>The Democrats currently have 47 seats (counting the two "independents" that caucus with the democrats, Bernie Sanders and Angus King of Maine). Assuming Biden wins the election (as I strongly predicted in my previous post), the democrats need 50 Senators to control the Senate (with newly elected Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie). Doug Jones of Alabama will lose. Yes the polls are close. Yes he will do much better than Biden in Alabama. But Alabama is too red to elect a democrat unless, say, a child molester running against him. So the Democrats will "start" with 46 seats and need 4 to take control (again assuming Biden wins). </p><p><u>Arizona</u>:</p><p><u>Prediction</u>: Democrat Mark Kelly by 8.</p><p>Fundamentally, Arizona should be a Biden state (but not by much at all!), and the democrat should run well ahead of Biden. Easy democratic pickup. Predict the democrat wins by 8.</p><p>In Arizona, Nate Silver's model, at https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/senate/ predicts the Arizona Senate vote will be 52.8-47.2, or the democrat, Mark Kelly, by 5.6 points. I would definitely take the over on that. Biden will likely (but not definitely) win Arizona, the state hasn't warmed to incumbent Republican Martha McSally, and Kelly is a GREAT candidate (former astronaut and husband of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head at point blank range some years ago and survived.</p><p><u>Colorado:</u></p><p><u>Prediction</u>: Democrat John Hickenlooper by 9</p><p>Colorado will be an easy pickup for the Democrats. CO is a blue state at this point; I have Biden winning it by 12.5 (Nate Silver has CO going for Biden by an expected 11.5 points). Voters rarely split tickets these days. The Colorado Senator is linked to Trump. The democrats are running a mildly popular former governor. John Hickenlooper is not a natural politician, but he's acceptable. Nate Silver's model has Hickenlooper predicted to win by 7.6 points. I would again take the over, but not by much. I used to think Hickenlooper would outrun Biden; I'm not so sure of that now. But it won't matter.</p><p><u>Maine</u>:</p><p><u>Prediction</u>: Democrat Sara Gideon by 6</p><p>Susan Collins, aka Concerned Susan for Democrats that follow this stuff closely, will lose. She used to have a LOT of crossover appeal, with Democrats voting for her in significant numbers in past elections. Not this time. Nate's model has her losing by 2.6 points to Sara Gideon, the state House Speaker. I would yet again take the over, as I expect Gideon to win by about 6.</p><p>If I only expect a 6 point win how can I be so very confident? A very fair question. Especially since Maine is an elastic state (meaning it has relatively more voters than average that will change their minds). It would take a while to explain, but the short version is that Gideon is up in virtually every poll and more importantly Biden will win Maine big. Hillary C only won Maine by 3, whereas I have Biden winning it by 12! Collins will outperform Trump for sure in this light blue state, but not by enough to make up a 12 point stagger. </p><p><u>North Carolina</u>:</p><p><u>Prediction</u>: Democrat Cal Cunningham by 3</p><p>If the 3 above races go as I predict, North Carolina would be the 4th seat that Democrats would need to take the Senate. I predict that the Democrats will win this seat, although we reach the first seat where I'm not super sure. I have Biden winning North Carolina by 1. While I'd way rather be Biden than Trump in NC, I'm obviously not sure about Biden winning it. Democrat Cunningham should outrun Biden. This was a near certainty until Cunningham became embroiled in a sexting scandal. Most important Senate race for determining Senate control (the most likely Senate tipping point if you will) and the GOP candidate gets COVID and the Democrat has a sexting scandal. So 2020.</p><p>Anyway, we should know the winner of NC, and this seat, on election night, unless one or both are VERY close, as NC will have its ballots counted very quickly (as will Florida).</p><p><u>Iowa</u>:</p><p><u>Prediction</u>: Democrat Theresa Greenfield by 1</p><p>I have <u>Trump</u> winning Iowa by about 1. I do expect Greenfield to outrun Biden, but NOT by much. So while I am predicting Greenfield to win, the real answer is: (1) I don't know who is going to win this race; and (2) you don't know either. How Biden does nationally will likely decide this race. If Biden wins in a blowout, by say 10 points nationally, the Republican, Joni Earnst, is toast. If Biden wins by only 6, I would predict that Ernst survives and holds the seat for the GOP. At my 8 point prediction this race is close but SLIGHTLY favors the democrat. I note that Nate Silver's model forecasts the election as a 1 point win for the Democrats. So I'm basically cheating. Don't tell anyone please.</p><p><u>Georgia</u>:</p><p><u>Prediction</u>: GOP Senator Perdue by about 1.5 points. </p><p><u>Prediction 2</u>: The other seat is CERTAIN to go to a runoff election IN JANUARY, likely with 1 Democrat and 1 Republican. I think the Democrat will be a modest underdog, though I am very uncertain about that. Usually Democrats lose runoffs, but if the Biden rout that I predict does come to pass, there is a real chance of a dispirited GOP base in Georgia simply not bothering to show up for a runoff while a still enthused Democrat base does.</p><p>I have Biden winning Georgia by 0.8 points. Wouldn't be surprised by 3 points either way on that prediction. Crucially, Perdue is VERY likely to outrun Trump. Hence my prediction that he hangs on. But on a big Biden night, Perdue could well lose. The problem Democrats have here is that it is Trump that is causing Georgia to be so close. There is no objection to Perdue that I am aware of among the state GOP and right leaning independents. Hence he outruns Trump. Hence he probably holds on.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-61670510480152589092020-10-07T14:26:00.001-04:002020-10-07T14:26:39.217-04:00<p> I predict Biden will beat Trump by 8 points, and win the electoral college in a landslide.</p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I predict Biden beats Trump by 8 points in the popular vote,
53.2-45.2</span></u></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. Obviously I can’t predict
with precision, but that is my working hypothesis. <b><u>I predict
Biden gets 369 electoral votes, 4 more than Obama did in his 2008
landslide. </u></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Of the swing states, I have Biden winning practically all of
them: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio (probably), Georgia,
North Carolina, and Arizona.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Note that assuming
that Biden wins every state Hillary Clinton won, which is very likely), the 3 Midwestern
states alone (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan) are enough to win Biden
the electoral college and thus the presidency.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The map I am predicting is just below.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://www.270towin.com/maps/Wm8px" target="_blank"><span style="color: #b60b03; font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif;">https://www.270towin.com/maps/Wm8px</span></a> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I expect Biden to do VERY well in the Midwest (Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin and Michigan) and give him slightly better than 50-50 to win Ohio (which
Trump won by 8 in 2016!)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I expect Biden
to do only ok in North Carolina (15 electoral votes) and Florida (a whopping
29) but because he’s winning by 8 nationally, I expect him to carry both
states, and Florida by 2 points (practically a landslide for Florida!)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Clinton beat Trump by 2.1 points (note: I mean Hillary
Clinton throughout; I do not discuss Bill at all).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Given that I expect Biden to win by 8 points,
that means I expect the nation to be 6 points bluer than in 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some states will move more than 6 points towards
Biden (the Midwest in particular!) and some states will move less (Florida,
North Carolina, Georgia (I think) Arizona (I think).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, Trump won each of the 3 midwestern
states, Florida, North Carolina and Arizona by less than 4 points (significantly
less in the case of Florida and the 3 Midwestern states). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, if my popular vote prediction is
correct, he should win every swing state I named except perhaps Ohio which
should be very close.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Detailed discussion of the swing states (and a few non swing
states below).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Why should anyone read my election predictions? Well,
in <b><u>June</u></b> 2008, I put up a post here,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">https://flyingpinkunicorns.blogspot.com/2008/06/state-by-state-analysis-of-2008_14.html</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">in which I predicted an Obama landslide 8-point win and made
predictions for the all the swing states and some others. My predictions
were <b><u>spectacular</u></b>!!! See the summary of the results of my
predictions here.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #0000ee; font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><u>https://flyingpinkunicorns.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-were-my-predictions-lets-go.html</u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">My 2012 predictions were even better, however 2012 was a MUCH
easier election to predict. I missed only one state, Florida, which Obama
only won by 0.9 points. The post I made, was the night before the
election. You'll have to trust me that I was predicting the exact same
thing for months.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="http://flyingpinkunicorns.blogspot.com/2012/11/obama-will-win-tomorrow-and-receive-303.html" target="_blank">http://flyingpinkunicorns.blogspot.com/2012/11/obama-will-win-tomorrow-and-receive-303.html</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">My 2016 predictions were <b><u>TERRIBLE</u></b>. I
never put up a blog post (fortunately?), but I had Clinton winning a mess of
states that Trump won. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just a horror
show.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hey, 2/3 aint bad. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">With respect to 2020, I had been expecting a closer popular
vote until just several days ago. Had I written this a month ago, I would
have had Biden winning by about 6.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Trump's
bullying debate performance, and his contracting Covid (as well as so many
others around him), after all of his denial and misinformation about it, seems
to have hurt him significantly at least in the short run. I expect that
to fade somewhat, but not entirely.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Note that I am not factoring in any shenanigans/plain old
theft on the part of the GOP, nor the certainty of a lot of mail in ballots
being rejected. While a real risk (and in the case of mail ballots being
rejected a certainty): (1) I’m not that worried about GOP shenanigans; (2) I
have no edge in understanding the risk; and (3) while mail in ballots will be
rejected much more often than in person votes, they also make it easier to vote
while increasing turnout. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Onto the meat of my predictions!</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">PAST POPULAR VOTE RESULTS</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: Obama + 7.2</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: Obama + 3.9</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Clinton + 2.1</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2018 House popular vote (the aggregate of all votes
nationwide in the 435 US House elections): Dems + 8 (close enough)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2020 Real Clear Politics ("RCP") AVG as of 10/7/2020:
Biden v. Trump: <b>Biden + 9.1</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 popular vote Biden + 8</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Arizona (11 electoral votes): </span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: Red + 5 </span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(moving .6 points towards blue relative to the nation)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Biden by 3</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">By <u>predicted lean</u>, I mean where I expect the state to
be relative to the 8 point predicted popular vote win for Biden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I predict Arizona to be 5 points more Republican
than the nation, hence my predicted 3-point win for Biden (8 point popular vote
win -5 point Republican lean = 3 point win).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: McCain + 8.5 <b>(red + 15.7) </b>(3rd party
1.6%) (2.32 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: Romney + 9 (Romney a great fit) <b>(red + 12.9)</b>
(3rd party 2%) (2.307 m votes cast)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Trump + 3.5 (Trump a bad fit) <b>(red + 5.6)</b>
(3rd party 7.5%) (2.605 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final 2016 RCP average GOP + 4. <b>Deviation
Dem + .5</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2018 Senate: <b>Dem + 2.35 (red + 5.65) </b>(3rd
party 2.4%) (2.384 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden + 3.4 (<b>Red + 5.7)</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on Arizona</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:
Arizona has a lot of seniors, a group which Biden is greatly outperforming
Clinton.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While Biden is underperforming Clinton
with Hispanics nationally, he does not appear to be doing so in Arizona according
to the polls.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Arizona also has a fair
number of suburbs, where the GOP has badly underperformed 2016, both in actual
elections and in polls.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The 2018 Arizona Senate race, which Sinema, the democrat,
won by 2.35 points is instructive.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Arizona Senate race</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:
GOP Senator Martha McSally is toast.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
predict she loses by at least 8.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
would give democrat Mark Kelly the seat for only 2 years, as this is a special
election</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Colorado (9 electoral votes: </span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: Blue + 4.5</span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> (moving 1.8 points towards blue relative to the nation)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Biden by 12.5 (!!!)</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: Obama + 9 (Blue + 1.8) 3rd party 1.7% (2.4 m
votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: Obama + 5.4 (Blue + 1.5) (3rd party 2.4%) (2.57 m
votes cast)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Clinton + 4.8 (Blue + 2.7) (3rd party 8.6%) (2.78
m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016 </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">RCP average Dem + 3 </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Deviation
Dem + .1.9</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden + 10 (blue + 2.5)
(ONE POLL!)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on Colorado</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Colorado has a ton of people with college degrees (which
favors Biden) and is quite suburban (which favors Biden, even as compared with
2016).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although I see a Biden blowout in
Colorado in 2020, I could easily see it being competitive in 2024 depending on
the national environment, and the type of candidate and campaign run by the
GOP.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Colorado is a blue state now, but
its not so blue that it is out of reach for the GOP.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is about as blue as Florida is red, for
reference, and a Democrat can of course win Florida in a good year (Obama won
it twice).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If I were a GOP primary voter
in 2024 concerned about winning above all else, Colorado would one of the top
two or three states I would have in mind (Florida and Pennsylvania round out
the list).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Colorado Senate race</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:
Incumbent GOP Senator Cory Gardner is toast.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He should lose by low double digits to former Colorado governor John
Hickenlooper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Gardner isn’t especially
noxious or unpopular, but he’s tied to Trump, and that is enough for him to
lose in this light blue state with a very unpopular (in Colorado) Trump on the
ballot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bye bye Cory!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Florida (29 electoral votes !!)</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: Red + 6 (moving red by 2.7 points
relative to the nation) </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Biden by 2 (!)</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: Obama + 2.7<b> (red + 4.5</b>) (3rd party 0.9%)
(8.411 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: Obama + 0.9% <b>(red + 3)</b> (3rd party
.87%) (8.474 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Trump + 1.2 <b>(red + 3.3</b>) (3rd party
3.16%) 9.40 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016 </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">RCP average GOP + 0.2 -- Deviation</span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">
GOP + 1</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2018 Senate: <b>GOP + 0.13 (red + 7.87) </b>(3rd party
almost zero) (8.189 m votes cast)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden + 3.5 (<b>red + 5.6</b>)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on Florida</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Florida is a rare swing state where Biden hasn’t polled all that
well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He’s up 3.5 points in the average
as of now, but Biden has not pulled away at all in Florida. Democrats typically
underperform their polls in Florida and did so in 2018.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is a real concern with respect to who
wins Florida.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Biden not only could
underperform his polls, but SHOULD, and I predict will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As of now, he has a small margin of
error.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That could change.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">There are a ton of southern whites, who if anything are more
Republican than in 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The large Cuban
community still favors the GOP (but not as much as did 20 years ago).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These voters have not moved for Biden in the
polls as of yet, and likely will not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There
are a LOT of seniors, and while Trump hasn’t lost that much ground among
seniors in Florida compared to 2016, he has lost some ground, and that should
tip the balance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am not confident Biden
will win by as much as 2, it could easily be less.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it should be more than the 0.5% margin
for which Florida law mandates a recount.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Obviously, Trump can sue to try and invalidate the massive numbers of
mail in ballots.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If such a suit were
even partially successful, Trump would VERY likely win Florida, and win the
election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is most unlikely, in my
opinion.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">For those understandably worried/focused on possible GOP
shenanigans or lawsuits causing mail in ballots not to count, watch Florida
very closely on election night.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Florida
is used to huge numbers of mail in votes, and begins to count them a few weeks
BEFORE election day (unlike Pennsylvania and some other states which are,
amazingly, barred by law from counting mail in votes before election day
regardless of when they arrive).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
results in Florida on election night should be quite close to the final
results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Florida is called for Biden,
its hail to the Chief (for Biden!)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Florida
is too close to call, Biden can and should still win if all the mail in votes in
the Midwest are counted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Florida is
called for TRUMP (would surprise me), Biden won’t win the popular vote by 8,
and there is at least some suspense (perhaps a lot) over who will win the
electoral college.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Georgia 16 electoral votes</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: Red + 7.2. (not moving relative to
the nation)</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Biden by 0.8</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: GOP + 5.2 <b>(red + 12.4</b>) (3rd party 1%)
(3.932 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: GOP + 7.8 <b>(red + 11.7) </b>(3rd party
1.2%) (3.900 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Trump + 5.1 <b>(red + 7.2)</b> (3rd
party 4.2%) (4.141 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016 </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">RCP average GOP + 4.8. </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Deviation
GOP + 0.3</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden by 0.3 (red + 8.8)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on Georgia</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Georgia has lots of white southerners (which favors Trump
heavily, as these voters have not changed their preferences much if at all
compared to 2016).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, there are a
LOT of black voters, and there is real room for increased turnout as compared
to 2016, which would be a huge deal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
note that one of the two Senate races features a black candidate, which could
marginally drive up turnout among black voters.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Finally, Georgia has a lot of affluent white suburban
voters, which have turned against the GOP since 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That said, many of these voters already did
not vote Trump in 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Adding all this
up, I don’t expect much movement relative to the nation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, Biden winning the popular vote by 8
points would be too much to overcome.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Georgia Senate races</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Georgia has 2 Senate races, one of them a “jungle primary” election
which culminates in a January runoff.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is a special election which gives the winner only 2 more
years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The other Senate race is a normal
Senate race.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Biden wins by 8, both
are too close to call.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>FORCED to predict,
I’d predict incumbent GOP Senator Perdue hangs on by his fingernails while a
democrat makes the runoff, where he’d be an underdog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So I tentatively predict the GOP hangs
onto both of these Senate seats.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Iowa (6 electoral votes)</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: Red + 9 (moving blue by 2.5
relative to the nation)</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Trump by 1</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: Obama + 9.54 <b>(blue + 2.44</b>) (3rd party 1.62%)
(1.544 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: Obama + 5.81 <b>(blue + 1.9) </b>(3rd party
1.83%) (1.582 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Trump + 9.41 <b>(red + 11.51)</b> (3rd party
7.11%!!!!!!) (1.566 m votes cast)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016 </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">RCP average GOP + 3. </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Deviation GOP + 6.5</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden + 0.5 (red + 8.6)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on Iowa</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I thought I would end up predicting that Biden wins
Iowa.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But when I ran the numbers, I
ended up with a prediction of Trump, and I’m not going to let my (flawed)
pundit ability overturn the results that my best guess at the numbers.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Iowa is lily white, and has a ton of white non college
graduates, which were Trump’s most important strong cohort by far.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Biden is greatly outperforming Clinton among this
group, which is why the Midwest looks so terrible for Trump right now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Iowa is, I think, red enough with Trump on
the ballot for him to hang on even while losing nationally by 8 points.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am not confident in this prediction, however.
Biden could win a squeaker here.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Iowa Senate race</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:
Incumbent Republican Joni Ernst is in a tight race.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The RCP average right now is an astounding
Greenfield (democratic challenger) by 5!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I don’t believe that for a second.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I tentatively predict that the democratic challenger wins, but I have
little confidence in this prediction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A titanic
amount of money has been spent on this race by Iowa standards.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Maine (2 electoral votes statewide, 1 each for the 2
congressional districts)</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: blue + 4 (moving blue by 3.1 relative
to the nation) </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Biden by 12 (real downside risk
to this forecast, but Biden is safe to win Maine comfortably) He will win at
least 3 of the 4 electoral votes, and is a modest favorite to win the 4th</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: Obama + 17.3<b> (blue + 10.1) </b>(3rd party
1.9%) (731,163 votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: Obama + 15.29% <b>(blue+ 11.5) </b>(3rd party
2.7%) (724,758 votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Clinton + 3 <b>(blue+ 0.9)</b> (3rd party
7.4%!!!) (771,892 votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016 </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">RCP average DEM +5 4. </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Deviation GOP +
1.6</b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden + 12.8 (<b>Blue + 3.7)</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on Maine</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Maine has a lot of white non college degree voters, the
group that swung so hard for Trump in 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A few months ago, I expected Maine to be fairly close this time, but the
recent polls predicting a Biden blowout have convinced me otherwise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Maine Senate race</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:
Incumbent GOP Senator Susan Collins, aka Concerned Susan, is very likely to
lose if Biden carries Maine by double digits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If Trump keeps Maine a lot closer than I think, the Senate race could be
a photo finish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I absolutely expect
Collins to lose and would be very surprised if she pulled the race out.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Michigan (16 electoral votes)</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: Exactly purple-- even with popular
vote (moving blue by 2.3 relative to the nation)</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Biden by 8</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: Obama + 16.4<b> (blue + 9.2) </b>(3rd party 1.8%)
(5.010 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: Obama + 9.5 <b>(blue+ 5.6) </b>(3rd party 1.08%)
(4.731 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Trump +.023 <b>(red + 2.3)</b> (3rd
party 5.3!!!) (4.799 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016 </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">RCP average Dem + 3.4 </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Deviation GOP + 3.7</b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2018 Senate: <b>Dem + 6.5 (red + 1.5) </b>(3rd party
.59%) 4.237 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden +6.2 <b>(red +2.9) </b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on Michigan</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Michigan was Trump’s biggest surprise in 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are a lot of white non college voters, who
strongly favored Trump in 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However,
these voters shifted hard to the democrats in the Midwest in 2018 (though the
GOP still won them, just by much less than in 2016).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The polls say this election will be a LOT
more like 2018 than 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hence Biden’s
strong performance in the polls in the Midwest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I’d be ASTOUNDED if Trump pulled off the upset here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Trump does somehow, some way, win
Michigan, he’ll very likely be reelected.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Michigan Senate race</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:
I’d be shocked if incumbent Democrat Peters didn’t win.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That said, the GOP candidate, John James, is
a strong candidate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the popular vote
is VERY close (wildly unlikely imho), James could pull off the upset.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Minnesota (10 electoral votes)</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: blue + 2 (moving blue by 2.6 relative
to the nation) </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Biden by 10</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: Obama + 10.4 <b>(blue + 2.45) </b>(3rd party 2.12%)
(2.91 m votes cast)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: Obama + 7.7 <b>(blue+ 3.8) </b>(3rd party 2.4%)
(2.937 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Clinton + 1.52 <b>(red + 0.62)</b> (3rd
party 8.5%!!!) (2.945 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016 </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">RCP Dem + 6 </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Deviation GOP + 3.5</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2018 Senate: <b>Dem + 24.1 (blue + 16.1) </b>(3rd party
3.45%) 2.597 m votes cast) (Amy Klobuchar is a VERY strong candidate—Minnesota
is NOT that blue anymore)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden + 9.4 <b>(blue + 0.3) </b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on Minnesota</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Earlier in this cycle I and others though Minnesota would be
at least vaguely competitive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It won’t.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">New Hampshire (4 electoral votes)</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: Exactly purple, even with the nation (moving
blue by 1.73 points) <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Biden by 8</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: Obama + 9.65 <b>(blue + 3.4) </b>(3rd party .89%)
(707,611 votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: Obama + 5.6 <b>(blue+ 1.7) </b>(3rd party
1.6%) (710,972 votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Clinton + 0.37 <b>(red + 1.73)</b> (3rd
party 5.13%!!!) (743,117 votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> RCP average Dem + 0.6 </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Deviation GOP + 0.3</b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden + 8.4 <b>(red + 0.7)</b> <b> </b> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on New Hampshire</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:
New Hampshire should absolutely be competitive in 2024 and beyond.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Nevada (6 electoral votes)</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: Blue + 1 (moving blue by .7 relative to
the nation)</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Biden by 9 (10 or 11 wouldn't surprise
me a bit)</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: Obama + 12.5 <b>(blue + 5.43 </b>(3rd party 3.2%)
(967,848 votes cast)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: Obama +6.68 <b>(blue+ 2.78) </b>(3rd party
1.97%) (1,014,918 votes cast) </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Clinton +2.38 <b>(blue + .28)</b> (3rd party
6.5%!!!) (1,125,385 votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016 </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">RCP average GOP + 0.8 </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Deviation Dem + 3.2</b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2018 Senate: <b>Dem + 5 (red +3) </b>(3rd party
about .5%) 972,132 votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden +5.3 (<b>Red + 3.8) </b></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on Nevada</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Nevada was/is hit harder than (virtually) any other state by
this Covid recession, due to its huge dependence on tourism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That could hurt Trump here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevada is somewhat hard to poll.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition, Democrats typically overperform
their polls here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have more uncertainty
in my Nevada forecast than most other states with the vital exception that I am
super confident Biden will win it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">North Carolina (15 electoral votes)</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: red +7 (moving red by 1.25 relative to
the nation)</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Biden by 1</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: Obama + 0.32 <b>(red + 6.88) </b>(3rd party .89%)
(4.311 m votes cast)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: GOP + 2.04 <b>(red + 5.94) </b>(3rd party
1.3%) (4.505 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Trump +3.66 <b>(red + 5.76)</b> (3rd
party 4%!!!) (4.742 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016 </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">RCP average GOP +1 </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Deviation GOP + 2.7</b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden + 1.4 (<b>Red + 7.7) </b> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on North Carolina</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">North Carolina has a lot of white southern voters, who have
not moved towards Biden anywhere near as much as the overall population.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, these voters may move slightly towards
<u>Trump</u>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>North Carolina also has more
than average suburban voters, who have moved sharply away from Trump.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>North Carolina has slightly more black voters
than average, which won’t move towards the democrats, as black voters were
about 90-10 for Clinton, but there could be slightly increased turnout.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since white southern voters are the largest group,
and will likely hold strong for Trump, I see North Carolina getting a bit redder.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In the coming several election cycles North Carolina is
likely to move a bit towards the democrats (more moderate and liberal voters
moving from the north) and is my expected hot new swing state for 2024 and
beyond.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By swing state, I mean a state
that could go either way in a fairly close election.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">North Carolina Senate race</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:
This is perhaps the hottest Senate race this year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Money has POURED into this race from all over
the solar system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Incumbent GOP Senator
Thom Thillis has COVID (get well Tom!) while democratic challenger Cal Cunningham
is in a sexting scandal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I predict (guess,
really) that these two things will cancel each other out, and that voters in NC
have made up their minds in both the presidential and Senate races.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">https://myfox8.com/news/last-48-hours-of-political-chaos-affects-nc-senate-race-at-crucial-moment/</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Republican Thillis is mildly unpopular in this light red
state, which should call for a VERY close election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The 538 model currently predicts the
democratic challenger will win about 50-47.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That seems like too big a margin to me, yet I still predict the democrat
wins here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, Biden’s 8 point
national lead is just too much.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Ohio (18 electoral votes)</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: Red + 7.8 (moving blue by 2.43
relative to the nation</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Biden by 0.2.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ohio could easily go to Trump of course, if
Biden wins by 8.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Biden wins by 9 or
more, I’m very confident he’ll win Ohio.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: Obama + 4.6 <b>(red + 2.6) </b>(3rd party 2.6%)
(5.7 22 m votes cast)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: Obama + 3 <b>(red + 0.9) </b>(3rd party
1.63%) (5.581 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Trump +8.13 <b>(red + 10.23)</b> (3rd
party 4.7%!!!) (5.496 m votes cast)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016 </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">RCP average GOP + 3.5 </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Deviation GOP + 4.6</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2018 Senate: <b>Dem + 6.8 (red +1.2) </b>(3rd party
about zero) 4.417 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden + 1.2 <b>(Red +7.9</b>) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on Ohio</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:
Long a crucial swing state, Trump blew Clinton out, winning by 8.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, Ohio is chock full of white voters
without a college degree, and while these voters noticeably favor Trump, he is
not performing nearly as well with this group as in 2016.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Given that I predict Biden to win Ohio by only 0.2, I’m
obviously not confident in it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ohio will
not matter in this election, barring lawsuits invalidating large numbers of mail in votes, or
other drastically unusual items.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes)</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: red+ 1.5 (moving blue by 1.3 relative
to the nation))</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Biden by 6.5</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: Obama + 10.32 <b>(blue + 3.12) </b>(3rd party
1.38%) (6.015 m votes cast)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: Obama + 5.38 <b>(blue + 1.48) </b>(3rd party
1.43%) (5.754 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Trump +0.72 <b>(red + 2.82)</b>
(3rd party 4.36!) (6.156 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> RCP average Dem + 1.9 </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Deviation GOP + 2.6</b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2018 Senate: <b>Dem + 13.12 (blue + 5.12) </b>(3rd
party 0.62%) 5.009 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden + 6.3 (red +2.8)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on Pennsylvania</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Pennsylvania has been considered THE most important state of
this election cycle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I agree strongly
with this assessment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Biden wins by 8
or more, he will easily win the electoral college.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, hypothetically, if Biden only wins the
popular vote by 4, he would NOT win Florida, North Carolina or (most likely)
Arizona.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That could make Pennsylvania
absolutely crucial, and perhaps decisive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Nate Silver has coined the term tipping point state – the state
that puts a candidate over 270 votes, meaning s/he has won other states by more
than s/he wins the tipping point state by.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I think its VERY likely that Pennsylvania will be the tipping point (as
Florida so famously was in 2000, and Ohio was in 2004.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The difference between this election and
those 2, obviously, is that I do not expect this election to be close.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Texas (38 electoral votes!!!)</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: Red + 10 (moving blue by 1.1
relative to the nation)</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: TRUMP + 2</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: GOP + 11.8 <b>(red + 19) </b>(3rd party 0.97)
(8.087 m votes cast)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: GOP + 15.8 <b>(red + 19.7) </b>(3rd party
1.45%) (7.994 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Trump +9 <b>(red + 11.1) </b>(3rd
party 4.5!) (8.969 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016 </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">RCP average GOP + 11.7 </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Deviation Dem +
2.7</b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2018 Senate: <b>GOP +2.56 (red + 10.56) </b>(3rd party
0.78%) 8.732 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: <b>Trump</b> + 3.2 (<b>Red + 12.3</b>) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on Texas</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:
There has been a ton of chatter in democratic circles about flipping Texas to
blue in 2020.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That was never in the
cards absent a big Biden landslide.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At a
guess, he’d need to win the popular vote by 11 or so to flip Texas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s not totally off the table, but I’d
sure bet against it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And more to the
point, if Biden wins Texas, he’s won Florida (!), North Carolina, Arizona, and
the Midwest, and EASILY won the electoral college.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Texas is getting bluer, and if this
continues, could well be in play in 2028 or 2032.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But democrats were dreaming about putting
Texas in play in 2020.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do note that
Biden has bought ads in Texas recently.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-10-07/biden-buys-ad-time-in-texas-as-his-lead-grows-and-his-map-expands</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I see this as a candidate flush with money (as Biden is,
another thing I totally did not expect) trying to lure the other side into
wasting money, as well as focusing on party building and a series of house seats
that absolutely could flip.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Biden’s team
is spending only $6 million (a drop in the ocean in wildly expensive Texas), so
it’s a what the heck kind of move.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
would bitterly oppose spending real money.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I think Team Biden would be much better served to spend additional money
in Iowa and Ohio (they are, I assume, maxed out in North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin and Arizona) and as for Florida, Mike Bloomberg has promised to spend
$100 million to help Biden.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Virginia (13 electoral votes)</span></u></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: Blue + 5.5 (moving 2 points
towards blue relative to the nation)</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Biden by 13.5</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: Obama + 6.3 <b>(red + .9) </b>(3rd party
.9%) (3.723 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: Obama + 3.9 (<b>blue </b>+0) (3rd party
1.5%) (3.855 m votes cast)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Clinton + 5.6 (<b>blue </b>+ 3.5) (3rd party
5.9%) (3.985 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016 </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">RCP average Dem + 5.3 </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">NO DEVIATION</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden +11 (Blue + 1.9)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on Virginia</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">:
Virginia has, since 2000, gone from light red to purple to light blue to flat
out blue. The large number of people
dependent at least partially on federal government work has put Virginia out of
reach for the GOP absent a landslide win.
I’m not saying the GOP can’t win the popular vote by 5. I think it could. But unless it does (and perhaps by even more
than 5) Virginia is now safely in the blue column for a long time.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Wisconsin (10 electoral votes)</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 lean: Red + 1 (moving BLUE by 1.88)</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Predicted 2020 Winner: Biden by 7</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2008: Obama + 13.9 <b>(blue + 6.8) </b>(3rd party 1.47)
(2.983 m votes cast)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2012: Obama + 6.94 <b>(blue + 3.04) </b>(3rd
party 1.45%) (3.068 m votes cast)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2016: Trump +0.77 <b>(red + 2.88) </b>(3rd
party 6.33!!!!!) (2.976 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Final </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">2016 </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">RCP average Dem + 6.5 </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Deviation GOP + 7.2</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2018 Senate: Dem <b>+10.83 (blue + 2.83) </b>(3rd
party 0.1%) 2.661 m votes cast) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">RCP average on 10/7/2020: Biden + 5.6 <b>(Red + 3.7) </b> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Comments on Wisconsin</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:
Earlier on in the cycle everyone including me expected Wisconsin to be reasonably
close.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact that Trump has lost
significant ground among white voters without a college degree is fatal in
Wisconsin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He won it by less than 1
point last time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He has no margin for
error, and the move among these voters has been significant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><br /><p></p>Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-67651266190131272362016-01-03T15:55:00.001-05:002016-01-03T15:55:53.918-05:00I predict the S&P 500 will end 2016 at 2,336, up about 14% from its year end 2015 figure of 2,044 <u style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Cliff notes</u><br />
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<u><br /></u>
I predict that the S&P 500 will end 2016 at 2,336. This represents a 14.3% increase above the year end 2015 figure of 2,044. Barring a black swan event, I think the risks to this forecast are slightly to the upside; that is I think we could see the S&P above 2,400. Note that the current all time high for the S&P 500 is 2,134, so I am predicting a series of fresh all time highs.<br />
<br />
I would likely predict about the same 14% increase for the Dow Jones. It closed 2015 at 17,425, so I would predict it ends 2015 at about 19,865. Obviously 20,000 would be very much achievable if my forecast is right.<br />
<br />
I note that I have been bullish on the market for a LONG time, and remain so. More on that in an upcoming blog post.<br />
<br />
I arrive at my prediction of 2,336 for the S&P 500 by assuming about a 14% increase in earnings for the 500 ish companies in the index, while keeping the price to earnings multiple the same. .<br />
<br />
I expect the US economy to grow about 2.5%, just slightly above the very boring 2%+ range it has been in for much of the recovery. (I must note here that I have been noticeably too optimistic about US GDP growth for years). I expect interest rates to rise gently (perhaps 50 basis points on the 10-year treasury bond). I expect inflation to pick up once oil bottoms, but not in a fashion that will scare the Fed or the market. I expect the fed to raise interest rates only 2 or 3 times in 2016, as a still sluggish economy, and slightly slowing job growth mean that a real inflation scare is very unlikely.<br />
<br />
<u>I arrive at my 2016 Price Target by Estimating S&P 500 earnings and estimating a Price to Earnings Multiple</u></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<u><br /></u></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
One way to value a stock or a market is by the age-old price to earnings ratio. If a stock trades at $10/share, and earns $1/share, it has a Price to Earnings ratio (P/E) of 10 (and is often considered cheap). The same valuation methods work for the S&P 500. However, this is not a simple process. First, you need to predict the earnings, or the E. This is tricky enough, and estimates 12 months ahead are often well off the mark (typically too optimistic). Next comes the harder part. You must assign a multiple. Simplistically, if a market (or a stock) trades at a low multiple, say 10, that means the market is pessimistic on future earnings growth for that company. Interest rates also play a large (and in my opinion hugely under appreciated) part in assigning an appropriate multiple. Low interest rates should and typically do mean high P/E multiples, and high interest rates mean low multiples.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
Thus in order to arrive at a price target for the S&P 500 by this methodology, I need to (a) estimate earnings for the S&P 500 in 2016; (b) estimate the Price to Earnings multiple at year end 2016; and (c) multiply the earnings by the multiple. The result of that multiplication is my price target. Is this a valid exercise? Yes, I think so. There are a series of assumptions that go into my estimate of the "appropriate" multiple, and disagreement with these can easily yield strong disagreement on the multiple I assign, and a wildly different price target. I don't mean to make this sound scientific. But I humbly submit there is some science involved.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<u>S&P EPS 2015</u></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<u><br /></u></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
Earnings per share for the S&P 500 for 2015 were about <b><u>$105/share.</u></b> That is the number I am using. (Its impossible to know exactly as final results are not in yet and I found significantly different numbers in a few places, some lower, some much higher. </div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
Raymond James said just a few weeks ago that 2015 earnings were $107. http://raymondjames.com/pdfs/share/morning_tack.pdf. </div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
Standard & Poors' spreadsheet, with some extrapolation, yielded $105, so that's what I'm going with.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">http://www.spindices.com/indices/equity/sp-500 (additional Info, Index earnings).</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">I note that as for the obvious question what does S&P 500 earnings per share mean, the issue is quite complex. There is no one company, obviously. Instead, its a formula, based on the earnings of the constituents of the S&P 500, multiplied by the company's weight in the index. Thus Apple's earnings count for more than General Electric, as Apple's market capitalization is nearly double GE's. And so on, with smaller companies counting for less. Honestly, I don't really understand the formula, except in broad outline. Happily, I don't have to. By relying upon published actual and estimated earnings per share and using the closing price of the index, I can easily compute the price to earnings multiple (as many do) and go from there. I don't really need to understand precisely how it is computed. </span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<u style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">S&P 500 Price to Earnings Ratio for 2015</u><span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">The S&P ended 2015 at 2044 (rounded to the nearest whole point). Thus the Price to Earnings ratio at year end 2015 was <b><u>19.47</u></b> (2044/105 = 19.47). I use this P/E ratio to come up with my 2016 target for the S&P 500. I assume no change in the multiple at all. While this is obviously very unlikely to occur precisely, it does mean that I am not relying on any expansion of exuberance on Wall Street. </span></div>
<div>
<br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; text-decoration: underline;">S&P P/E recent history</span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">19.47 is a fairly high P/E ratio historically, but not wildly so. the ratio was MUCH higher during the wild bull market of the late 1990s, when I think nearly everyone agrees the market was significantly overvalued. </span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">http://www.multpl.com/table</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<u><br /></u>
I think 19.47 is slightly below where the P/E ratio should be, given that inflation is VERY low, interest rates on long term government treasuries (key competition for bonds) were VERY low compared to history, and earnings growth potential for the next few years was/is good. Obviously, one can disagree with these key assumptions.<br />
<br />
One way to look at this is what is called the earnings yield. This is merely the inverse of the Price to earnings ratio. If the P/E ratio is 20 (close enough to the actual 19.47 for this big picture point) that meanings the Earnings yield of the S&P 500 (earnings/price) is 5%. Put another way, stocks are "earning" 5%. $105/share in earnings is just under 5% of the 2,044 that the S&P ended the year. That's a pretty good deal in comparison with the 10 year treasury bond, which closed the year at 2.27%.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<u>Predictions for S&P 2016 Earnings Per Share </u></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<u><br /></u></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
I am "estimating" 2016 earnings to be $120/share, a number I believe to be slightly conservative. When I say I am estimating, what I really mean is that that is the number I am ASSUMING. I lack the capacity (by a long shot) to actually run bottom up estimates for what each of the 500 (ish) companies in the S&P 500 index will earn and then multiply each appropriately. Instead, I am relying upon estimates by the big banks.<br />
<br />
RBC (Royal Bank of Canada) predicts S&P earnings for 2016 of $124/share (recently cut from an earlier $128). http://www.businessinsider.com/rbc-golub-revises-2016-sp-500-target-2015-12</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
Raymond James predicts $126/share. http://raymondjames.com/pdfs/share/morning_tack.pdf</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<u><br /></u></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Goldman Sachs in late September predicted $120/share for 2016: </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">http://www.marketwatch.com/story/goldman-sachs-slashes-sp-500-price-and-earnings-forecasts-2015-09-29</span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Barrons states that the mean average Wall Street estimates for 2016 are $123.50, with most estimates being higher.</span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">http://www.barrons.com/articles/stocks-could-rise-10-in-2016-according-to-market-strategists-1449899461</span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">I am assuming $120/share. </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">$120 represents about a 14% increase in earnings over 2015. </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">A 14% increase in earnings may seem very optimistic, but is in line with earnings estimates by Wall Street, above, (which I freely admit are almost always too high). I think this time the estimates are slightly too LOW because I expect the consumer to finally spend more of the savings resulting from massively lower oil prices, while the negative effects of lower oil should be largely played out. If it sounds like I am saying this time is different, that's because I am.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">By coincidence, the $120 estimate I am using for 2016 is exactly the same as Goldman's estimate. I think the risk is to the upside; that we could actually end up between 125 & 130, as the more optimistic seers on Wall Street are predicting. However, I have been too optimistic on economic growth (which tends to yield higher earnings) for a long time now, and its time to make a different mistake!</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<u><br /></u>
<u>S&P predicted 2016 P/E and thus target price for 12/31/16</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
2016 earnings per share of $120 X the projected P/E ratio of 19.47 = <b><u>my target of 2,336.</u></b><br />
<u><br /></u>
The final item necessary for me to come up with a price target for year end 2016 is to estimate the Price to Earnings multiple at the end of 2016. This depends on my view of interest rates (gentle rise), inflation (rise), and my prediction for overall optimism of the market in general (about where it is now, or slightly more optimistic).<br />
<br />
As I said above, I am using the P/E ratio from year end 2015, which was 19.47. I think that forces pulling it higher are evenly balanced with forces pulling it lower.<br />
<br />
Forces pulling the P/E higher include slightly better economic growth, a predicted encouraging rebound in earnings, better numbers out of Europe and possibly Japan, China failing to implode and slightly less pessimism about the US recovery.<br />
<br />
Forces pulling the P/E lower include slightly higher interest rates, continued sluggish growth, potentially a further rise in the dollar (this would surely effect earnings, whereas the effect on the P/E multiple is not clear), and, most importantly, a rise in inflation, as we lap the sharp declines in oil prices. <br />
<br />
Crucially, I am betting that Janet Yellen does not panic in the event inflation rises slightly as she and others predict, and raise short term interest rates quickly. That is absolutely mission critical to everything written here. If the economy performs as I expect, and Yellen raises rates 5 or 6 times, the market should be about flat for 2016 even if we do earn the $120/share on the S&P 500 that I am assuming. The reason is that the market will take down the P/E ratio in a world of rapidly rising short term interest rates and a sluggish economy. In contrast, if we see 3%-3.25% GDP growth, the market would happily accept 5 or 6 interest rate hikes. This is a very unlikely scenario.<br />
<br />
A final word about inflation. Inflation should FINALLY move towards or even above the Fed target of 2%. With the recent sharp price DECREASES coming off the books, and a predicted somewhat higher oil price for the year, the inflation in the rest of the economy (health care, education, rent, housing) becomes a larger weight in the CPI. See Bob Johnson of Morningstar. http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=734613</div>
</div>
Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-21386535333647295012014-11-04T13:07:00.002-05:002014-11-04T13:07:31.935-05:00Senate Predictions:<br />
<br />
I predict that the GOP will take the Senate tonight relatively easily, netting 8 seats. Most of these elections will not be close, although runoffs are very possible which would, in my view, delay the inevitable.<br />
<br />
First, the 3 currently GOP held seats which the democrats could conceivably win. The GOP will hold Kentucky. McConnell will not lose a red state seat where Obama's name is mud. Not gonna happen. Second, Georgia. Sam Nunn's daughter is putting up a real fight. If it were 2008 she'd win. 2012 she might win. Not in 2014, though it won't likely be a blowout.<br />
<br />
Third Kansas. I have no idea who will win Kansas. The GOP incumbent is VERY unpopular. The state is VERY red. Obama is VERY hated.<br />
<br />
So I see the GOP has very likely holding two and don't know about Kansas. Forced to predict, I would predict the challenger wins and chooses to caucus with the GOP!<br />
<br />
The above predictions leave all currently GOP held seats in GOP hands. There is certainly a chance the democrats snag Kansas, but even that won't save them if my predictions are right, as shown below. Assuming the GOP does hold the above 3 seats, it needs to take 6 seats from democrats to gain control.<br />
<br />
The GOP will definitely take West Virginia and Montana. The democrats winning either of these would be a MONSTER upset, and won't happen. I further predict the GOP will take South Dakota, though, amazingly, that isn't a sure thing. But if the GOP takes these three seats, and holds the above mentioned seats, it needs 3 more seats to take control.<br />
<br />
The possibilities are many: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina. That's 7. Of these, I think the GOP wins all except for North Carolina and New Hampshire. Thus I have the GOP taking 5 seats here, plus the three mentioned in the previous paragraph, for a total of 8.<br />
<br />
In a massive wave, there are other democrats that could lose, but I don't think that's likely and I don't predict any further losses.<br />
<br />
All in all a disastrous night for the democrats, though, as I will show in a future post, not at all a good predictor for the 2016 Senate elections.<br />
<br />
<br />Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-43742277954695977942012-11-05T19:40:00.001-05:002012-11-05T19:40:32.192-05:00Obama will win tomorrow, and receive 303 electoral votesI know its VERY late for my election predictions, but I never got around to it before tonight.<br />
<br />
Obama will win. It won't be anything like the margin of 2008, obviously, and some states won't be called until after 11, but he will win.<br />
<br />
Of the swing states:<br />
<br />
Romney: wins Florida (by about .3%)and North Carolina by about 1.5% (some chance of Obama upsetting Romney in Florida)<br />
<br />
Obama wins all of the rest of them: Minnesota (by 8), Pennsylvania (by 4), Michigan (by 10) (blue states won by Gore/Kerry), as well as the true swing states (New Hampshire (by 2), Nevada (by 4), Iowa (by 3), Colorado (by 1), Wisconsin (by 5!), Virginia (by 2), OHIO (by 3.3 or so).<br />
<br />
This adds up to 303 electoral votes (270 is the magic number).<br />
<br />
If all of my other predictions are correct, Obama could lose OHIO and still win (he would have 285, and could still spare 15).<br />
<br />
If you see Virginia or Colorado called for Obama, he's all but a shoo in. In contrast, if both North Carolina and Florida are called quickly, within 1 hour after their polls close, then it becomes reasonably like I am wrong, and Romney might even win.<br />
<br />
In the end, its a highly similar election, really, to 2004, with the incumbent at about 50% job approval and a weak challenger from Mass.<br />
<br />
The democrats will also hold the Senate. I predict 53 Democratic Senators (counting the new Senator from Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the two independents (after King from Maine wins) who are politically liberal and will caucus with the democrats. <br />
<br />
Put another way, 51 democrats, 2 independents, 47 Republicans.<br />
<br />
There you have it. Here's hoping my predictions are anything like as good as 2008 (very VERY good) as opposed to 2004 (predicted Kerry by 2.5) and Gore (predicted he'd win, let's leave Florida out of this).Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-85095861320347514572012-03-11T18:42:00.001-04:002012-03-11T21:47:28.355-04:00Further investment ideas.<br />
<br />
I have been thinking a lot about the markets in recent weeks, and talking a lot about them, to anyone who would listen, and more than a few people who wished they didn't have to.<br />
<br />
Two caveats. First, nothing in this blog post is investment advice! You must do your own homework! Second, I own stock and/or option positions in every company mentioned in this post except JP Morgan, which I'm considering buying.<br />
<br />
Here is what I've been thinking about. I have a few GREAT investment ideas which I'll outline. Cheat sheet-- BUY STOCKS. Especially buy cyclical stocks and big banks. I am especially bullish on Citigroup, GM, Ford and GE. Not because I think they will triple quickly or anything (though both Citi and GM should double or come close in the next two years if most things go right) but because I'm super confident that each of these are seriously undervalued. But more on that later.<br />
<br />
The conditions I laid out as crucial parts of my investment thesis in my last post, hold. Europe is successfully muddling through, and will VERY likely avoid the worst outcomes which involve contagion. The manner in which they are doing it is very stupid, and harmful to Europe long term, but that's another post. Suffice to say Merkel and company won't let Greece/Portugal take down the world economy a la Lehman, and new flyingpinkunicorn fave Mario Draghi, the new head of the ECB will not let banks take down the global financial system, a la Bernanke.<br />
<br />
Second, the US economy is improving, though recent data causes me to think the expansion has slowed a bit and may remain slow until about June when it should pick up again. Although we do not yet have the Obama Boom I wrongly predicted a few years ago, all signs are indeed more positive, and auto sales are particularly strong, a sign of consumers having long term confidence (as well as beat up old cars).<br />
<br />
As for specific investment ideas, the two that I mentioned prominently were TBT, an ETF which shorts interest rates, and IFN, a Closed End Fund which owns shares in Indian stocks.<br />
<br />
On January 3, when I recommended TBT, it was at 18.60. It closed Friday at 19.27. That's a 3 % return in two months and change. Not pathetic, but not great considering the market has beaten that by a mile. <u>I NO LONGER RECOMMEND TBT</u>. I have concluded that the fact that instrument (designed to vary by twice the inverse of a basket of long term bonds) does not do this accurately over periods longer than a single day renders it useless for a long term investment. In addition, I appear to have been premature on my call that interest rates will rise. They may not rise much until after the Fed's Operation Twist concludes in June, and maybe even a tad later. I have instead bought put options on TLT which expire in January. This ETF will, at least, accurately track long term interest rates (with a direct 1-1 relationship) over time. So a put on TLT does indeed serve as a bet on longer interest rates. I am not as excited about this call as I was in January.<br />
<br />
IFN, an ETF which owns Indian stocks, turned out to be a brilliant short term call. IFN was $19.68 when I recommended it on January 3rd, and closed this past Friday at $23.23. That's a tidy 18% return in two and a half months!!! A Monster return, obviously. I did not advocate IFN because I thought the Indian market would soar overnight, but instead as a long term play. My strong belief that India is the next China is intact. It won't be as clean and neat an economic rise, but a rise it will be, and a stockpicker who can pick the right companies in India can make a glorious amount of money if my predictions come to pass. The folks running IFN seem to know what they are doing, so there is no reason I can think of not to buy IFN if you are thinking long term.<br />
<br />
As for my American stock plays:<br />
<br />
GM/Ford-- their stock is ridiculously low compared to their profits last year. Car sales are WAY up this year in the US, and both companies are going to make a metric boatload of money in the US this year. Europe will be a big drag, and China may be a potential pitfall for GM (it currently makes a lot of money in China) but roaring success in the US should drown out international woes. Both stocks have already run up nicely this year, but have a long LONG way to go. In addition, the market is only trading at 13 times last year's earnings. With interest rates this low, that is an absurd multiple. That multiple should increase to a historically normal 15 or so sometime in the next 2 years. That implies a big further rally in this already remarkable bull market, which turned 3 years old and 100% big just last week.<br />
<br />
Citigroup (and JP Morgan, and probably Bank of America) are wildly undervalued. The market still doesn't begin to trust these mega financials and their mega balance sheets. With good reason. But the market has gotten carried away. They've already run up big this year (my Citi shares and all of my Citi options are in a lovely shade of green) but have MUCH more room to run. Sometime this week, the Fed is HIGHLY likely to say that all financials have passed its (stressful) stress tests. Citi has presumably already asked for permission to increase its dividends/institute a stock buyback. I predict this permission will be granted. Don't know when, sometime in 2012. If/when that happens, I expect an immediate pop in the stock of at least a buck, and a whole lot more bucks in the stock price after that.<br />
<br />
GE: As soon as the Federal Reserve approves it, GE Capital should resume paying a dividend to the parent, GE, as opposed to hanging onto all of its cash. GE should then be able to increase its dividend and share buyback, as the CEO has repeatedly publicly stated he wants to. That should cause some of the share price increase I seek. Excellent quarters this year in most parts of the company should cause still more of it. Finally, I think the market overall is undervalued. Add all of that together, throw in a 3.57% yield, and I think GE is a clear buy (and hold!) for the long run, and a fine buy for the short run as well.Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-14672458681540301892012-01-03T09:16:00.000-05:002012-01-03T09:16:58.746-05:00<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">Two hot new investment ideas for 2012. </div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">Happy new year blog followers! I know I don't post frequently anymore. Happily, I've been very busy working, as well as with life, so I don't have the free time I used to to put together detailed long blog posts on the issue of the day. But there are a few killer investment ideas that I just have to share. Want to make 50% or more on your money in the next 12-18 months? Read on. Needless to say, these ideas are, for the most part, very <u>very</u> risky. Not for the faint of heart. <b><u>And nothing herein constitutes investment advice, of any kind, whatsoever.</u></b> I mean it! If you are interested, you need to do your own research, and a lot of it.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">I know this post is long, but I think it is well worth reading through, as it could make you a lot of money. By all means comment or email with any questions.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">My investment ideas are based on my predictions that interest rates are highly likely to rise significantly in the coming year or two (and perhaps beyond) and that certain investment vehicles which buy Indian stocks on the Bombay Stock Exchange are reasonably likely to soar in the short run and VERY likely to rise in the long run. I have put my money where my mouth is on both of these ideas, and expect to do very well and hope to make a killing. If you have money which you can afford to invest in HIGHLY risky investments, you should join me..</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><div>I note that I have been consistently WRONG about my predictions about the US economy, consistently being way too optimistic. I do think we're about to break out somewhat, and grow about 3-3.5% in 2012, but it would be entirely sensible for you not to pay too too much attention to my prediction. Hey, what can I say, predicting the future is hard, especially when it hasn't happened yet. I also note that I am nowhere near expert in what I am discussing here. But the big picture I think I do understand, and I think that is enough to make a lot of money. With those caveats in mind, here are my 2 hot investment ideas for 2012.</div><div><br />
</div></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">1) <u>Interest rates on long term US treasuries are highly likely to rise</u>. Hoped for return 1year from today? 50-75%. 120% wouldn't surprise me much.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">As many or most of you know, interest rates on long term US bonds tend to rise when investors are optimistic about the economy (for several reasons, especially including expected increases in inflation down the road) and tend to fall when investors are pessimistic (for the inverse reasons).</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">First, some brief background, experienced investors can skip. Long term interest have been very low for a few years now because of severe economic weakness as a result of the Great Recession, as well as a flight to quality and safety in turbulent times. When investors think the sky is falling, or might fall shortly, they often are eager to buy US Treasuries because these provide a safe haven. Accordingly, they bid up the prices of the Treasuries, and the yields move in the opposite direction of prices (google as to why if you like). The reverse happens when investors are more optimistic about the economy and less fearful about the world in general. The low yield of a US Treasury seems paltry compared to much more exciting and potentially lucrative investment ideas. At this time, investors are relatively eager to SELL US treasuries, driving the price down and the yield up. I note parenthetically that mortgage rates on houses are tied directly to the 10-year Treasury Bond-- they move in virtual lockstep with 10-year Treasury Bond rates. My predictions mean that if you are thinking of refinancing, hurry. Rates are VERY unlikely to go down significantly, and could well go up significantly. Quickly.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">A year ago, in January 2011 the economy was in many ways quite similar to where it is now. Unemployment was a little higher, but there was optimism that stronger growth was right around the corner. Accordingly, the interest rate on the benchmark 10-year Treasury Bond rose from 2.54% on October 1, 2010 to 3.36% on January 3, 2011, a year ago. In contrast, the interest rate on this bond closed 2011 at 1.89%! Thus interest rates on the 10-year bond plummeted by 1.4 points last year, a very significant move. (I note that rates are already up to 1.95 in early trading today)</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldYear&year=2011" target="_blank">http://www.treasury.gov/<wbr></wbr>resource-center/data-chart-<wbr></wbr>center/interest-rates/Pages/<wbr></wbr>TextView.aspx?data=yieldYear&<wbr></wbr>year=2011</a></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><div><br />
</div><div>There is nothing especially surprising about the interest rates from October 2010 and January 2011. However, the current interest rate, 1.89%, is very surprising indeed, and makes no sense based solely on the fundamentals of the economy. Why did interest rates drop so much in 2011, from a low level of 3.36% to a VERY low level of 1.89%? In a word, Europe. As the fundamentals in Europe deteriorated, and investors became more and more fearful of events in Europe, they fled the risks there (what market commentators call a flight to quality. (In fact, investors by and large fled risks everywhere, at least for a time). On July 1, 2011, before the worst of the Europe news began to hit the front page and dominate the business section (and before the huge market volatility of last Summer), the 10-year bond was at 3.22%, very close to the 3.36% where it started the year. On August 1, it was 2.77%, and by August 15th it was 2.29%! People became convinced the sky was falling, avoided almost anything risky like the plague, and ran to the safety and security of US treasuries. This trend continued right through to the end of the year.</div><div><br />
</div><div>I expect the 10-year bond interest rate to reverse course and head back towards about the 3.36% it was at at the start of 2011. I expect this for four reasons, the first three of which are by far more important than the 4th: </div><div><br />
</div><div>A) First, as noted, I predict that the economy will improve. Not an Obama Boom, perhaps, but an improvement. That should move interest rates up some. I note that I would make this investment even if I were certain the economy would be as in 2011 (but I would, admittedly, be less enthusiastic).</div><div><br />
</div><div>B) Second, I expect Europe to successfully muddle through, avoiding the worst (for example, an Italian default, which would be absolutely calamitous for Europe and very painful for the entire world). This is the key reason for my being so excited about this investment. If I knew for certain that Europe would (i) get significantly worse; and (ii) not improve noticeably by the end of the year, I would NOT make this investment at this time.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Why am I (somewhat) optimistic about Europe? Merkel in Germany is sensible. She's walking an incredibly difficult political tightrope, as if she is seen in Germany to be spending German money to bail out profligate countries on the Med, like Greece and Italy, she will end up voted out of office, if not on the business end of a pitchfork. In any event, she knows that whatever the consequences for her, she can't let the Euro area go to hell. And she won't. In addition, I really like what I've seen out of the new head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi. He has cut interest rates, and significantly increased liquidity for the European banks, which badly needed it. In other words, he's acting more and more like Time's 2009 Person of the Year, Ben Bernanke. Thank heavens! Sarkozy in France is also entirely sensible, and the new Italian government has already taken significant steps, as has the previous Spanish government. The European Central Bank is really the key, and Draghi is WAY better than his mediocre predecessor, Jean Claude Trichet (search my posts for my true feelings on that fellow).</div><div><br />
</div><div>Accordingly, I think it is highly likely Europe will avoid disaster. If you disagree with this prediction, you should almost certainly not make the investment I suggest. </div><div><br />
</div><div>Why is Europe so vital to American interest rates? Europe avoiding disaster will have a clear impact on the US 10-year Treasury, because as investors become more and more convinced that the sky is NOT in fact falling, they will want to take on more risk. A 1.89% return on paper issued by a profligate and politically dysfunctional US will look more and more ridiculous. So investors will want to sell, and drive the price up. This is exactly what I expect. I don't have any clue when in 2012 this should occur. Interest rates could well </div><div><br />
</div><div>C) Reversion to the mean: Interest rates have come down so far that I expect that in the absence of even more really bad news (for example, REALLY scary news out of Europe, a double-dip recession in the US, a localized shooting war between Iran and the US that temporarily drives oil to $180/barrel) interest rates should rise a decent bit from here even if I am wrong about the US recovery. If you told me that on 12/31/12 Europe will have muddled through without real disaster, and the US economy performed like it did in 2011, with unemployment about where it is now (8.6%) and no other especially bad news, I would GUESS that the long term rate would move up to about 2.5-2.8%, making me a tidy (but not unbelievable) return on my investment. </div><div><br />
</div><div>D) The US budget picture is gloomy in the medium and long run (as well as the short run) and our politics are dysfunctional enough that we may not fix it. That should, all else being equal, put upward pressure on long term interest rates, as investors expect that the temptation for the US to "inflate its way" out of the huge debt burden will become all but irresistible. </div><div><br />
</div><div>As stated above, reason D is far less important to me. Although potentially powerful in itself, the risks of the US becoming overly debt burdened is more of a long term play, and need not play out over the next few years (not to say it couldn't).</div><div> </div><div>A key reason I LOVE this investment idea is my conviction that even if I'm wrong and Europe DOES blow up, I still think I will either lose a little or make a little. I just can't see the US going the way of Japan, with 1% interest rates for an extended period. We're too dynamic an economy for that. And we're not aging anything remotely like as fast as Japan. So I see this investment as heads I tie (or lose a little) and tails I win a LOT. That's a fantastically good deal, when you can find it.</div><div><br />
</div><div>How am I going about making this wager on interest rates falling? I am using an Exchange Traded Fund ("ETF") to make this market wager. </div><div><br />
</div><div>What the heck is an ETF? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr></wbr>Exchange-traded_fund</a></div><div><br />
</div><div>The ETF I chose is ticker symbol TBT. It is an ETF designed to produce daily investment returns "<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px;">before fees and expenses and interest income earned on cash and financial instruments, which correspond to twice (200%) the inverse (opposite) of the daily performance of the Barclays Capital 20+ Year U.S. Treasury Bond Index." *Sigh* I barely know that that means, but there is a strong, strong correlation between this index and the interest rate on the 10-year bond (which I am using as a proxy). So this ETF is NOT a pure bet on the movement of interest rates on the 10-year Treasury Bond, not by a longshot!</span></div></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">Indeed, the biggest risk to this investment, other than Europe or something else going calamitously wrong, is the ETF itself, and its a close second. There is no guarantee (to say the least!) that it will in fact perform as it is intended to. If rates go up significantly, it is VERY likely to go up as well, but not certain, and the amount is far from certain. I feel so strongly about interest rates going higher in the next 12-18 months that I am willing to take on this additional layer of risk.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">For reference (and as you always hear, past performance is no guarantee of future performance (!), on January 3, 2011, exactly a year ago, this ETF closed at $37.51. I bought this on December 21, 2011 at 18.59. So if rates on the 10-year were to move back to where they were a year ago, and this ETF performed exactly the same on the way up as it did on the way down (HIGHLY unlikely) I would do a tiny bit better than doubling my money. In a year. In the real world, if interest rates do go back to 3.36% I estimate that I could expect a return of anything between 70 and 110%. That's a crude estimate, and could prove wrong.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">As a cheaper (but even riskier) alternative, you could buy out of the money call options on TBT, and REALLY clean up if I'm right. Of course, you lose a lot, perhaps even 100%, if you're wrong.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">2) India. Mutual Funds and Exchange Traded Funds which invest in India got absolutely clobbered last year. The ETF I have recently purchased (IFN) collapsed by 42.81% last year!!!!! That counts the payouts that were made (equivalent to dividends on a stock). A 42% loss!!! Why? Two main reasons: (i) India had its own serious problems (huge corruption scandals, a plummeting currency, the Rupee, and an economic slowdown); and (ii) Europe. As of July 2011, (when Europe began to completely dominate business and investment news) it was down "only" 13% or so for the year. The second half of 2012, however, was a complete wipeout.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><div>To back up a bit, I think two of the very biggest macro trends of the next few decades are HIGHLY likely to be strong economic growth in India and China. China you all know about. India has also experienced rapid GDP growth in recent years, a far cry from its chronic economic under performance from its independence in 1947 through the reforms of then Finance Minister Singh in the early 1990s. This lousy economic performance was often called the License Raj, and the low growth rate (when India was dirt poor, and thus should have been growing far more rapidly) was derided as the Hindu rate of growth. No longer. In recent years, its economy has grown around 7.5%, and a tad higher in 2010. Not quite Chinese rates of growth, but still very strong. Enough to create tens upon tens of millions of new consumers, who are buying things like tvs, cell phones, refrigerators, etc. And cars. And a lot of other things. </div><div><br />
</div><div>Although investments in funds that invest in India are very risky, and highly likely to experience wild swings, a reasonably well run fund should do VERY well in the medium and long run, as India's economy continued to grow strongly. For all of its massive problems, India is a huge growth story. Invest a piece of your portfolio in it, for the long run. You'll thank me profusely 10, 20, 30 years from now.</div><div><br />
</div><div>In the short run, as stated above, India investments got absolutely clobbered by internal problems there and by Europe. I know zilch about India's progress towards solving its internal problems. I err on the side of pessimism knowing a little about the Indian government. However, investments in India were hammered by global fear arising out of Europe. Anything and everything risky scared people. There was and is great fear of risk,as discussed above. As this fades, there is no reason in the world for funds invested in India to do VERY well.</div><div><br />
</div><div>The investment vehicle that I have chosen is a Closed End Fund called "India Fund." Ticker symbol IFN. A closed-end fund is like the mutual funds you know about (commonly called open-ended funds) with the key exceptions that they trade like shares of stock, and do not generally issue more shares after an IPO. The simple version is that the managers raise money on the open market and invest in whatever it is they are going to invest in, in this case shares listed in India. The shares thus issues trade as any stock does, with supply and demand setting the price investors pay for shares in the fund.</div><div><br />
</div><div>The managers of the fund choose what shares (or other investment vehicles) the fund is to own. These change as the managers see fit. The market value of all of the shares (and other securities) owned by the fund, is called the Net Asset Value ("NAV") of the fund. It is the amount that the fund would presumably raise if it sold all of the securities it owned and liquidate and close up shop. The price you pay on the open market is NOT the NAV. It is a share price, just like the price of a share of GE or Exxon.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Accordingly, there are two key indices you have to pay attention to, the share price of the closed-end fund, and its NAV. It is possible for a closed-end fund to trade at a significant discount (or sometimes premium) to its NAV. That is, the total market value of the shares of the fund that you can buy or sell can be significantly less than the value of the shares it owns. Now and then this creates what I and many others believe is a monster buying opportunity. Such a monster buying opportunity currently exists for IFN, my closed end India Fund.</div><div><br />
</div><div>IFN had a closing share price of $35.33 on January 3, 2011, a year ago. I bought it at the very end of December at 18.82. In addition, I bought it at a large discount to its NAV, 12.8%. According to Morningstar, its 6 month avg. discount to NAV was 7.97% and its 3 year average discount was 3.46%, so it is currently trading at a significantly larger discount to NAV than it typically does! I don't know why this is the case. If I had to guess, and its only a guess, investing in India is VERY risky. As investors sought to avoid risk, this fund, and others like it, were shunned. In addition, India was a VERY unattractive place to invest last year. </div><div><br />
</div><div>The unusually large discount to NAV represents real value for me. Even if the value of the shares in the fund (the NAV) stays the same, if the fund merely reverts to its 6 month average discount to NAV of 8% (for simplicity), it would increase in price to $19.86, a tidy 5.5% return <u>without any increase in the value of the shares it contains</u>. Additionally, because the share price is beaten down so badly, it currently has a very attractive dividend yield of 6.3%. (Monies returned by a closed-end fund are not exactly like dividends of shares, but they are close enough for my purposes). </div><div><br />
</div><div>So there are 4 amazingly powerful reasons to buy IFN now:</div><div><br />
</div><div>1) The share price plummeted last year. If Europe doesn't self-destruct, the price should rebound, probably sharply.</div><div><br />
</div><div>2) It has a tidy yield of 6.3%, at its current share price. <a href="http://cef.morningstar.com/distribution?t=IFN&region=USA&culture=en-us" target="_blank">http://cef.morningstar.com/<wbr></wbr>distribution?t=IFN&region=USA&<wbr></wbr>culture=en-us</a> Needless to say, there is absolutely no guarantee this will continue. On the upside, it could grow and grow significantly.</div><div><br />
</div><div>3) It is trading at a 12% discount to its NAV, as against a 6 month average of 8.06% and a 3 year average of 3.48%</div><div><br />
</div><div>4) India is a slam dunk long term growth opportunity.</div><div><br />
</div><div>For all of these reasons, as of the moment I think IFN is a MONSTER buying opportunity. I wouldn't be at all surprised if my $18.82/share investment is worth $50 or $60 in several years, and a huge dividend yield thrown in at no extra charge.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Or it could all go to heck and I could lose 20-50% on my investment. Balanced against the above rosy scenario is that the problems in India which caused a good chunk of last years 42% decline are very real; are not going away anytime soon, and could easily get much, much worse before they get better. And of course Europe could go kaboom. Finally, a sharp rise in oil prices would hit India. It imports about 3 million barrels of oil/day, or over a billion a year. If oil jumps $20/barrel, a very normal increase, that's $20 billion out of India's economy. That's slightly more than 1% of India's GDP. And the effect would be worse than that, just as it is here when gas prices increase. If oil jumped $80/barrel, India's economy would go to hell in a hand basket. As would ours. As would my portfolio.</div><div><br />
</div></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">Here are investment ideas that didn't quite make the cut.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">I think gold is overpriced. Look at a chart of the price of gold, its a classic bubble. I bought GLL, an ETF designed to move twice the inverse of the price of gold. I've done well thus far, up about 10.7% in 6 months. GLL is at 19.81 now. I'll probably sell some or all of it at around 22.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">For a few more sedate, safer investment ideas, try GE and oil companies. I really like the idea of a good dividend. GE is currently yielding 3.8%. Assuming they slowly increase their dividend, that # goes up (slowly) even if the share price remains constant. You're wildly unlikely to quickly triple your money, and pretty unlikely to rapidly double it, but I see GE, counting dividends, beating the market for years to come.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">In closing, remember Warren Buffet's famous investment credo: Be fearful when others are greedy, be greedy when others are fearful. Right now, investors are quite fearful in much of the world. So be greedy!</div>Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-49390151054871548792011-11-15T10:55:00.000-05:002011-11-15T10:55:10.504-05:00Romney will be the nominee.<br />
<br />
I've been meaning to put up a post about how certain I am that Romney will be the nominee for a while, but life has interfered. I'll keep it short. Its done, over. Has been for a few months. Sure he's only polling around 30%, but he'll be the last man standing, just like McCain was in 2008. And as in 2008, the base will rally around him, this time out of blind hatred for Obama who, to many base Republicans, is pretty much a Kenyan Muslim socialist radical. One searches in vain to find any of these influences in his policies as president, but never mind.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Romney is a done deal. The huge favorite for his VP choice is Marco Rubio, first term Senator from Florida. He's Cuban, so there's some hope (mostly vain imo) that he can help secure Hispanic votes. But he won't hurt with them either. He will sew up Florida, which leans away from Obama anyway, and that's not a minor detail. He's young, VERY attractive physically, gives a very good speech and will boost the ticket despite a few drawbacks.<br />
<br />
I'll try and post in the coming few weeks about how I see the 2012 general election going. Cliff notes: Obama a clear but not overwhelming favorite. An economic lift (oft predicted by yours truly, still AWOL) would be a huge boost, obviously. As of now I see Obama winning the popular vote by about 3 or 4. That prediction could change based on economic data, and assumes an economy gathering strength into 2012. If we go into recession again before election day, however "minor" the recession (which I consider quite unlikely), Romney will win. But if we are adding 200k-250k jobs/month next year Obama will beat my 3-4 point prediction.Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-27730887938921002452011-09-07T11:15:00.000-04:002011-09-07T11:15:53.274-04:00Obama's big speech<br />
<br />
Here's what's going to happen tomorrow, when Obama is going to give his jobs speech.<br />
<br />
According to tentative leaks today, Obama will call for about $300 billion in "stimulus" spending, much or all of it to be paid for by cuts outlined soon. Many of these measures, particularly FAST (Fix America's Schools Today) make sense. And the dollar amount, if all of his proposals were enacted in full (snowball's chance in hell of that!) are enough to matter.<br />
<br />
So I'm happy, right? Not at all. America has HUGE problems, and HUGE unmet infrastructure needs, as Paul Krugman and others have been saying for years. America has a HUGE problem with a lack of consumer demand. These two HUGE problems (coupled with other big problems I don't have time to post about right now) call for huge solutions. Big stimulus now, reduction of health care spending, and some trims in other spending years from now. But the current massive budget deficit we are running is not a problem. In fact, its a godsend. If the GOP had its way, we'd slide closer to a Great Depression.<br />
<br />
Anyway, here's what I expect will happen after the speech. The markets will not react much because much of his program will not pass, and because any effect is priced in. The mainstream media will be very impressed with his "bold" plan. The GOP will deem some of it dead on arrival, but promise a careful consideration of the rest. And the Paul Krugman wing of the democratic party (the left, which is yearning for far bolder action) will be mostly disappointed. Krugman himself will probably spin it as a glass half full speech, but I expect much of the rest of the liberal blogosphere will be disappointed. Again. If anyone cares.<br />
<br />
I'll post my reactions in the days after the speech.Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-19593160312896368052011-08-20T19:00:00.000-04:002011-08-20T19:00:06.033-04:00I know I haven't posted in ages, but this story is such a screaming outrage I had to post.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/20/tennessee.immigrant.woman/index.html?hpt=hp_t2">http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/20/tennessee.immigrant.woman/index.html?hpt=hp_t2</a><br />
<br />
This really happened in the United States of America. The country I love. Her crimes were being here illegally and driving without a license. Perhaps they should be prosecuted. But the cruelty inflicted upon her is a screaming outrage. As is the dog's breakfast known as our insane immigration laws.<br />
<br />
SMH.Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-12873838448602054162011-01-29T09:49:00.000-05:002011-01-29T09:49:28.882-05:00Mubarak will go.<br />
<br />
Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak will go. Quite soon. I expect he won't last next week. I don't know what precisely will make him decide to give it up, but the most likely cause will be the army telling him his time is up. He'll get asylum somewhere, perhaps even the US, temporarily. Obama won't want to put him up permanently, but Reagan rescued baby doc from Haiti, and we would help Mubarak in his hour of need if it came to that.<br />
<br />
Follow Gsquare86 on twitter. She's a (very pretty) blogger in Egypt. She's living it now. She can see how this movie ends.<br />
<br />
The Egyptian people have HAD IT. And who can blame them? 30 years of autocratic rule, little economic growth, millions of unemployed, etc. The people have erupted. The army is a highly respected institution in Egypt, and they will certainly not go Tienanmen on the people. And that is what it would take. This protest is a revolution, it is real, it is not going away, and it will succeed, probably quite soon.Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-29604752892046988162010-10-31T09:15:00.002-04:002010-10-31T09:16:41.022-04:00I am predicting a bit more of a GOP blowout than some of the professionals, but my thoughts aren't out of the mainstream.<br />
<br />
First, I note that if you want the best site for these sorts of election predictions, go on over to <br />
<br />
<a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/">http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/</a><br />
<br />
Nate Silver is, imo, the very best of the political talking heads, bringing cool rational analysis to the discussion.<br />
<br />
But you're reading my blog, so here are my predictions:<br />
<br />
I expect the GOP to pick up 60-65 house seats (!!!!!) and 8 Senate seats.<br />
<br />
Here are the Senate seats the GOP will pick up:<br />
<br />
<u>Three</u> are essentially certain: Indiana (was Evan Bayh), North Dakota (was Byron Dorgan) (Arkansas) (is Blanche Lincoln, she's toast).<br />
<br />
<u>Three</u> are much more likely than not to go GOP<br />
<br />
Wisconsin (currently Russ Feingold, well down in the polls), Pennsylvania (currently turncoat Arlen Spector, who lost his democratic primary-- Sestack is slightly down), Colorado (appointed Michael Bennett is down a little)<br />
<br />
<u>Two</u> more states are VERY close, but I expect the GOP to take them both, making for an 8-seat pickup: Nevada (Harry Reid), Illinois: (Obama's old seat!). I note that in Nevada, Sharon Angle is such a weak candidate that None of the Above, which is really on the ballot in Nevada, may well pick up 3-5% of the vote and allow Reid to squeak back in.<br />
California (Barabara Boxer v. Carly Fiorina), Connecticut (Richard I served in Vietnam Bloomenthal), Washington and West Virginia (where Obama is at about 30%!) I expect to stay Blue. In a truly historic GOP night, at least two of these would flip, but I don't see that. I note that the Washington state polls are basically tied, but I expect Patti Murray, the democrat, to win by at least 3 or 4 points. For a variety of wholly unimportant reasons, Washington State is very difficult to poll and the polls are typically skewed a few points in favor of the Republicans.<br />
<br />
Finally, the GOP, as political followers know, gave up a nearly certain pickup in Delaware (which went for Obama by > 20 when it nominated Christine, I am not a witch, I'm you, O'Donnell rather than the eminently electable Mike Castle. Thanks guys!Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-26267212304782024602010-10-31T09:01:00.000-04:002010-10-31T09:01:11.593-04:00I know its been a while in posting. I've been very busy with other things in life. Yeah, ok, I've also been licking my wounds about having been WRONG about the Obama Boom. I still think we're about to enter a nice recovery, but (a) its very tardy; and (b) it likely will not be as vigorous as I expected. More on that in a post coming sometime soon. In the meantime, I'm back.Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-70086909517808301042010-04-30T10:00:00.000-04:002010-04-30T10:00:19.684-04:00Today's GDP Report shows clearly that the Obama Boom is underway.<br />
<br />
This morning, the US Government announced its estimate that the economy (GDP) grew at a 3.2 annual rate in the first quarter of this year. <a href="http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm">http://www.<span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">bea</span>.gov/<span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">newsreleases</span>/national/<span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">gdp</span>/<span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">gdpnewsrelease</span>.<span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">htm</span></a>. This marks the third consecutive quarter of growth and the second consecutive quarter of strong growth. There is no longer any doubt at all that the Great Recession of 2007-2009 is well and truly over.<br />
<br />
Let's walk through what this report means. At first glance, this is actually a <strong>weak</strong> report. Following the Great Recession, in which GDP declined by 2.4% in 2009, the most in any year since the 1940s, and in which unemployment skyrocketed by more than at any time since the Great Depression, one would expect a strong recovery. That's what happened in 1983-1984, following a sluggish start to that recovery. This is the economic boom which Reagan claimed was "morning in America" and led him to a 49 state reelection landslide in 1984. <br />
<br />
3.2% growth in the first quarter of this year is <strong>not</strong> a strong recovery, by any stretch of the imagination. 3.2% would be fine if the unemployment rate were say 6%, but at 9.7% it is weak. However, when you look closely at the GDP report, it is clear that the Obama Boom has in fact begun.<br />
<br />
First, and foremost, consumer spending, which makes up around 2/3 of the economy, and which has been hit very hard by the soaring unemployment rate, grew at a 3.6% annual rate in the first quarter, as compared with a 1.6% rate in the 4th quarter of 2009. This was true because consumers have a lot of pent up demand, for cars, certain electronics, and many other things for which purchases were put off in the last few years. It is most unlikely that the 3.6% growth rate in consumer spending will increase much until unemployment comes down substantially, which will take time, but I also think that it is unlikely that this growth will slow very much.<br />
<br />
The housing sector was <strong>VERY</strong> weak in the first quarter,<strong> shrinking</strong> at a 10% annual rate! Paradoxically, the housing sector is the main reason that this report was in fact a <strong>strong</strong> report. Surprisingly, housing construction is only about 5% of GDP. <a href="http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=784&genericContentID=66226">http://www.<span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">nahb</span>.org/generic.<span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">aspx</span>?<span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">sectionID</span>=784&<span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">genericContentID</span>=66226</a><br />
<br />
However, even at such a small share of GDP, a 10% decline in 5% of the economy means that housing dragged down economic growth by .5%. This is not the full story.<br />
<br />
I agree with the general consensus that it is all but impossible for the economy to recover strongly while housing is in the tank. This is because when people buy a house they buy furniture, televisions, and all sorts of other things. The National Association of Home builders States that, "housing services have averaged between 12 and 13 [% of GDP.]" Thus housing overall is a very significant portion of the US economy.<br />
<br />
So if housing is important, and it shrank so sharply in the first quarter of this year, why is that cause for optimism? Because what goes down must come up. Permits for new houses grew solidly in the first quarter. As one might expect, permits strongly correlate with future growth in housing construction. So I expect housing to very quickly move from a sector of the economy detracting from economic growth to a sector contributing, and perhaps by late this year contributing strongly.<br />
<br />
In short, the seemingly weak 3.2% growth in the first quarter likely presages stronger growth going forward. Growth strong enough to produce the large number of new jobs that I have previously predicted. In fact, when the employment report comes out a week from today, it is likely to show that the economy created well more than 200,000 jobs in April. The Obama Boom has indeed begun!<br />
<br />
One final note. S<span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">tate</span> & local governments are tightening their budgets significantly, causing a drag on economic growth. This will continue for another year or thereabouts, as tax receipts will recover, but not quickly enough to close the huge budget holes in New York, California, New Jersey, Illinois, and other states. So this area of the economy will remain a drag for some time. However, later in this expansion, in 2011 or 2012, when other areas of growth may well slow, this area will again add to economic growth. That different sectors are in very different places cautions against a super strong recovery, like the one in 1983-84, but augurs well for a long expansion.Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-81591186375669291932010-04-30T09:26:00.000-04:002010-04-30T09:26:08.725-04:00Larry <span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">Kudlow</span> agrees with me <br />
<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/10/a_v-shaped_boom_is_coming_105131.html">http://www.<span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">realclearpolitics</span>.com/articles/2010/04/10/a_v-shaped_boom_is_coming_105131.html</a><br />
<br />
This means I have to carefully consider if I'm just wrong. <span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">Kudlow</span> is a nearly mindless, knee jerk "conservative" who does hold some consistent and interesting views, but generally ignores any inconvenient history. This is, I think, one of his better pieces, but then I would say that, since he agrees with me!<br />
<br />
Still, read this carefully. It isn't his usual garbage, for a wide variety of reasons. In particular, his focus on corporate profits is one I STRONGLY agree with. The main reason for my hyper optimism beginning late last Summer was my expectation of a BOOM in business investment. That Boom has probably begun. The consumer is even coming back to life, as was shown in this morning's GDP report showing 3.2% annualized growth in consumer spending in the first quarter of 2010.<br />
<br />
By the way, <span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">Kudlow</span> references that the 4th Quarter of 1992 was better than 1993 and blames the tax hikes of 1993 (which were widely expected from about September of 1992 on. Well <span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">ok</span> (this has some truth). However, <span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background: yellow;">Kudlow</span> conveniently leaves out the years of 1994-2000, when, after the Clinton tax hikes of 1993, the economy BOOMED!! Hey Larry, do tax hikes only hurt in year one and then help in the out years? To the extent one looked at the data from 1992-2000 and turned their brain off, that is what one would conclude. In reality, the Clinton tax hikes of 1993 HELPED the economy because they convinced the bond market that we were getting our arms around the budget deficit, and thus interest rates dropped for much of the Clinton presidency, helping spur a great economic boom. <br />
<br />
In any event, someone not kindly disposed to Obama, at all, strongly agrees with my hyper economic optimism. Take that for what its worth.Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-29479293762211397622010-04-03T08:35:00.000-04:002010-04-03T08:35:07.160-04:00The Great American Job Machine stirs<br />
<br />
<br />
The Bureau of Labor Statistics just announced that 162,000 jobs were created in March. For the first time since December 2007, the American economy created jobs (that is, more jobs were created than were destroyed). Its about time!<br />
<br />
As my loyal readers are aware, I have been predicting, for months, a strong economic recovery, that would generate jobs, with the number rapidly increasing. In short, I have been predicting a much stronger recovery than nearly every economic prognosticator. I stand by that prediction. I am most certainly not claiming any sort of victory after one good report. Instead, we'll see in the coming months if the labor market really has recovered. After strong economic growth the last quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year, medium sized and large businesses are still very nervous about adding headcount. This can't last-- if demand for their products & services increase, new jobs will as well-- the laws of economics and common sense demand it. But businesses are bound and determined to wait as long as they possibly can, to ensure they can get the credit they need (in the case of small businesses) and to ensure that the pickup in demand is lasting (businesses of all sizes, but especially large businesses). Since I predict that investment by business is about to take off hugely, and that consumer spending, depressed since 2008 by job loss and fear of economic armageddon, is about to improve, demand for the goods/services of businesses in America should improve, and steady increases in jobs should follow.<br />
<br />
Let's look more closely at today's reports. The report was expected to be skewed by a huge number of workers hired for the 2010 census. Even though those workers count as employed, and bring in a paycheck, their jobs are very temporary, and its appropriate to strip them out if you are trying to figure out the economy's underlying strength. There were 48,000 new census workers, far lower than expected. So there really were over 100,000 new jobs created, mostly temporary workers and in the health care industry. So the labor market is still quite weak, of course. Just a little bit less weak.<br />
<br />
In addition, the government each month releases a second report which is used to report the unemployment rate that you hear in the news, currently 9.7%. That report also attempts to count how many jobs are created/lost in a given month, but the number of jobs in that report is considered less reliable than the number of jobs reported in the other survey, which is what the media is referring to when it reported that 162,000 jobs were created in March. Still, the second, less reliable report, concluded that 264,000 jobs were created in March. That marks the third month in a row the second survey has reported job gains, for a total of 1.1 million new jobs in 2010! That would be a strikingly good total if it were in fact true. Unfortunately, even I'm not that optimistic. As I said, the second report is considered less reliable. However, that second report is considered more reliable than the first, report, and in the fullness of time it may be that the labor market turns out to have been less awful in the last several months than we thought.<br />
<br />
Anyway, returning to the jobs gained in March. The 162,000 number is a fantastic number compared to the small job losses which have occurred for the last 6 months and the monster job losses that occurred in the year before that. But in the context of 15 million unemployed, and many millions more unemployed, it is, of course, a pittance. America will need years of stronger job growth than we had last month in order to bring the economy anywhere near to the 4.5% or so unemployment rate that is as low as we can realistically get. That's how deep a hole we dug for ourselves in the years leading up to the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the Great Recession of 2008-2010.<br />
<br />
But for now, we can all celebrate that the economy has begun creating jobs. It should create many, many, many more in the coming months.Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-35998725599117939272010-03-22T11:21:00.000-04:002010-03-22T11:21:26.878-04:00The market yawns at health care reform<br />
<br />
Memo to my conservative/Republican friends that are bitterly opposed to the health care reform legislation that just passed.<br />
<br />
The fate of health care reform was in serious doubt when the market closed Friday. As of 11:15 a.m. today, the first trading day after reform passed, the markets yawned. The Dow is up a tiny fraction, as is the NASDAQ. Virtually no movement at all on the dollar. If this really were a dramatic, government takeover of 1/6 of the nation's economy, with dire consequences for the budget and the economy, wouldn't the markets have reacted negatively? And if you want to say that the reaction is priced in already, well, then it must have been viewed POSITIVELY, because the Dow is up over the last several weeks, in the time that health care reform revived, and is WAY up since early in Obama's presidency.<br />
<br />
Far more likely is that the market thinks that health care reform will not dramatically effect the economy in the short or long run. Which is probably correct, though I think there will be a LONG term positive effect. What we can be reasonably sure of is that the market does not see short or medium term sharply negative effects, or we'd see the Dow down 2 or 3 percent, at least. Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-6348784796577128252010-03-21T23:55:00.000-04:002010-05-04T14:25:02.759-04:00<strong><u>HEALTH CARE REFORM PASSED!</u></strong><br />
<br />
The epochal, <strong><u>hugely</u></strong> historic health care reform measure just passed the House! Today will, in time, be seen as one of the great legislative days in the history of the United States! I haven't been this thrilled with anything political in the United States, ever. Nothing in my lifetime (1970) is even close.<br />
<br />
Teddy Roosevelt first proposed universal health care for all. FDR seriously considered including it in what became Social Security in 1935. Truman proposed it in the 1940s. Nixon proposed it in the 1970s. Nixon was a Republican, as was Teddy Roosevelt. Clinton, as we all know, proposed it and worked hard on it for a year. And while what emerges as law in the next week doesn't come especially close to truly universal coverage, it is a <strong><u>huge</u></strong> step forward. It is also a vital step towards a sane and rational health care system that doesn't cost twice as much per person as France or Germany.<br />
<br />
Following a weekend of incredibly high drama, with every vote fought over tooth and nail, and with the outcome in doubt until early this afternoon, just moments ago, the House passed the Senate version of health care reform. This horribly flawed bill now goes to Obama, who will of course sign it, probably tomorrow. Passage of the health care reform legislation represents a <strong><u>huge</u></strong> victory for him, as he was, as I said in my post yesterday, all in on Health Care reform. The amount of effort, time, thought, arm twisting and sheer energy put into this bill by Obama, Nancy, Harry, and so many other very important people will surely be chronicled in best selling books to come, and maybe even a $100 million grossing documentary. There is a lengthy New York Times article on this point today, which I haven't yet read. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/health/policy/21reconstruct.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/health/policy/21reconstruct.html</a><br />
<br />
The Senate must now vote on the House fixes to the Senate bill, and will do so via use of reconciliation, which means that it cannot be filibustered, and is guaranteed an up or down vote. Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader) and Dick Durbin (the # 2, and the guy responsible for counting the votes) have very confidently and quite credibly said they have the 50 votes to pass this series of fixes. If the Senate passes the same set of fixes as the House did earlier today, those fixes will go to Obama for his signature, which again should happen pretty quickly. The entire health care reform effort of the last year should (finally) be over in less than 5 days. A year and change of intense effort, following on talks over decades, stretching back to Teddy Roosevelt, albeit with long periods of inaction, has now, for the moment, ended. A great, great deal of work remains in the coming years, to be sure, but I suspect Congress is going to take a fairly long break from serious health care reform.<br />
<br />
We have made huge strides down the long, arduous road towards universal health coverage (and a rational health care system). This is just a <strong><u>monster</u></strong> win for America, a truly great day for us all, even though a great many Americans can't see that yet.<br />
<br />
There is no easy way to measure it, but this bill probably consumed more presidential effort than any since the great Civil Rights Act of 1964. And it passed. *whew*. Now, after the Senate presumably votes to approve the house-approved changes to the original Senate bill (I'm probably going to blogger hell after writing that last sentence) health care reform can get off the front pages and people can see that it doesn't do any of the terrible things that the the GOP says it does. And so will begin the democrats' and Obama's political rebound. More on that in a coming post.Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-57726344827265790202010-03-21T18:31:00.000-04:002010-03-21T18:31:33.381-04:00Health care will pass tonight<br />
<br />
By all press accounts, the suspense is gone. Nancy has the votes, with several to spare. The vote on the rules by which debate will proceed, which is an excellent indicator of how the final vote will go, has just been concluded, and it has passed by 224-206, thus with 8 votes to spare. No republican votes. <br />
<br />
This may well be the exact number that votes for the health care bill in two hours. I don't know for sure. In any event, the deed is done, and health care reform will certainly pass in just a few short hours. WOW.Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-70792002028225019512010-03-21T13:22:00.000-04:002010-03-21T13:22:45.145-04:00Dems appear to have the votes<br />
<br />
The latest breaking news is that a deal has been reached with Bart Stupak and other pro-life lawmakers for them to vote for the bill. If true, that would almost certainly cinch the vote for Pelosi. It now appears upwards of 95% that the House will approve HC reform today! WOO HOOO!!!Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-5984275799795741062010-03-21T12:34:00.000-04:002010-03-21T12:34:55.278-04:00Glued to C-Span<br />
<br />
I'm at work, earphones plugged into the computer, with C-Span on in the background. Maybe that's an indication that I need help. But I am SO into the upcoming health care vote. I'm pretty confident that if it passes, both the Senate bill and the fixes, that it will get somewhat more popular with the public in the coming months and years. There's just not much in it that hurts an ordinary voter. There just isn't. And when that sinks in, and when pre-existing conditions go the way of the dodo bird, it will likely become popular. IF it passes. And I'll be glued to C-Span. I'm almost sorry I agreed to go out tonight; I likely won't be able to watch live as the final vote is cast.Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-744365412807453252010-03-21T10:41:00.000-04:002010-03-21T10:41:08.998-04:00Health care reform does not poll well-- so what?<br />
<br />
I read a great article about why legislators should be very wary of taking actions based on public polls, particularly regarding complex issues. I wish I'd written some of this myself. I didn't-- and I don't think my commentary can improve upon it.<br />
<br />
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/20/george-gallup-health-care-and-the-peril-of-legislating-by-polls/Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-87673919525327402112010-03-20T14:41:00.002-04:002010-03-20T15:58:29.327-04:00Obama's all in <br />
<br />
First, in news that just broke moments ago, according to several key democratic members, the House will vote on the Senate bill tomorrow, and not use "Deem and pass." This is a good thing, in my view. <br />
<br />
To use a fairly well known poker metaphor, as Andrew has, Obama has moved all of his chips into the middle of the table. He is going all the way with his hand, and he'll either win big or lose big, and very likely we'll know which of these tomorrow. Its better than 80-20 now that he'll win big. It is to his great and everlasting credit, win or lose, that he finally moved all in. It did take him long enough.<br />
<br />
A bit of big-picture review. My friend Andrew, who is nearly always right about policy matters, has been bitterly critical of Obama on health care, and not without quite a bit of justification. For example, he was saying about June 2009 that Obama could not, under any circumstances, leave the writing of the Bill to Congress. He said, and I'm paraphrasing, that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could not be trusted to organize a trip to McDonalds, let alone a hugely complex piece of vital legislation. Reid in particular has seemed weak, the various congress people each had their own agenda, etc. Instead, he was calling on Obama to get in the trenches, write the bill in essence, then allow cosmetic tweaking and try and jam it down Harry and Nancy's throats. I'm the PRESIDENT, Andrew basically wanted Obama to say. I disagreed at the time, saying that giving Congress a few more months of headroom was good politics and made good sense. I think in the fullness of time he was right and I was wrong. Obama WRITING the bill was never in the cards, but he needed to be MUCH more aggressive earlier on. To use poker terminology, Obama was playing a good game of LIMIT poker. In limit poker, your bet sizes are rigidly limited. You either bet the amount you are allowed, or you don't bet at all. You can't move your big stack of chips in the middle and force your opponent to either call or fold. In no limit poker, by contrast, you can (and occasionally do) move all of your chips into the middle. <br />
<br />
Obama was making small demands, small shows of strength. In short, he was playing limit poker. Sure he wanted health care reform, of course, but he wasn't exactly setting any presidential effort records to get it. There were set piece speeches and events, but not a consistent, sustained effort.<br />
<br />
Then in January, Scott Brown in Massachusetts became the 41st Republican vote in the Senate-- the Democrats could no longer defeat a Republican filibuster with only democratic votes. And no GOP members wanted to play along. Which was very disappointing, but it was clear by about March 2009 that the GOP was going to oppose Obama in lockstep on big things. When John McCain isn't with you on immigration reform, you know the party's gone nuts.<br />
<br />
Anyway, after some brief talk of moving onto the economy and not focusing on health care, Harry, Nancy and Obama have been focusing non-stop on it, like a laser beam, for weeks. This in the face of an economy still deeply troubled and with polls showing the health care reform effort deeply unpopular. This is a truly astounding act of political courage by the democrats. Courage and democrats has not often been used in the same sentence in recent years (at least not without the modifier "lacking," or its equivalent) and for good reason. The democrats have by and large taken the easy way out, taking small shots at the GOP, but not frontally attacking their idiocy. In short, the democrats, like Obama, have been playing limit poker.<br />
<br />
Well that all changed a few weeks back, beginning publically with the televised summit. In having the summit at all, Obama basically announced that he was moving all in. Enough of this limit crap, he in essence said, I'm playing no limit, and I'm playing for keeps. All in boys and girls. That drastic change in presidential attitude, on behalf of a pretty crappy bill, and in the face of stiff public opposition, tells me that Obama really believes that health care is MONSTER important, and is willing to take gigantic political risks in order to further the great moral and economic cause of serious health care reform. And he deserves great praise, in my view, for moving all in.<br />
<br />
Tomorrow, in all likelihood, the final cards will be dealt and we'll see Obama achieve a huge, historic, glorious, hard-earned victory. But it will have been earned only because Obama finally moved all in.Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-89782675864893554262010-03-19T11:41:00.000-04:002010-03-19T11:41:34.366-04:00Health Care Reform will likely pass<br />
<br />
If I had to guess, the dems will pass it with 3 or 4 votes to spare. <br />
<br />
The fantastic CBO report, indicating that the health care reform bill will cut $138 billion off of the federal deficit in the next 10 years, and much more thereafter, probably sealed the fate of the bill in favor of passage. This projection by the CBO gives much needed political cover to moderate democrats in districts that voted for McCain (or barely for Obama) that they can run as "smaller government" types while voting for this health care reform effort.<br />
<br />
From what the dem leaders are saying this morning, and from yesterday's hugely positive developments, (the CBO projection) it now appears 80-20, at least, that the dems will pass the huge, comprehensive (and rather awful) health care reform package, probably on Sunday. As my readers know, despite the bill's huge flaws, I consider this a monumental step forward in American history. Once this bill is fixed up in the coming years (and it may take quite a few years), this achievement will be fully on par with the creation of social security and Medicare in its impact on America. <br />
<br />
There has been a TON of talk about the procedure involved in this latest leg of the health care reform battle. What is likely going to happen is that the House will pass the Senate bill, unaltered. This bill has some substantive problems, in addition to the smelly "bribes" needed to get votes 57-60 in order to pass a Republican filibuster. These include the infamous Nebraska giveaway, the Louisiana Purchase, a special deal for Florida, and more. Google these phrases for more info. After the House passes the Senate bill it goes to Obama, who signs it. It is then law. Next, the House and Senate will pass identical fixes to the bill, which will proceed through "reconciliation" a procedure in the Senate which precludes the use of a filibuster. The Democrats thus only need 50 votes (with Biden to break a tie, if needed) and not 60. This is not a challenge-- it was always getting ALL 60 members of the Senate to vote for a health reform bill that was the problem. 50 is easy. If that second bill, passed through reconciliation, gets a majority in both chambers IT goes to Obama for signature. Thus this round of health care reform would (mercifully) end, probably next week.<br />
<br />
For Larry, what do I think of deem and pass? There has been talk, not yet silenced, that rather than the House simply vote on Health Care reform, they would vote on a rule for debate on the reconciliation package which would "deem" the Senate Health Care bill passed if the second reconciliation package passed. This way the members could "avoid" voting directly for the Senate bill. Its a sneaky act of political cowardice (the Senate bill itself is very unpopular in the House, and easy to vilify in campaign commercials.), and I don't much like it. Typical democrat way of doing things-- terrified of their pathetic, idea-less GOP opposition, who ran the country damn near into the ground when they were in power. A Trillion dollars blown in Iraq, Great Recession, torture, etc. And Nancy and Harry are afraid of these IDIOTS! <br />
<br />
But do I, in the end, support Deem and Pass? Yes. If I was a yes vote in the House, and Nancy told me about this crazy procedure, I'd object. Strongly. But if she said, "look there are 5 wavering moderates that don't want to directly cast a vote for HC reform, but would rather use this crazy procedure," I'd be ok with it. Health care reform is <u>much</u> too important to worry about process. I will add that using this crazy procedure would almost certainly be a significant political NEGATIVE to those who go along with it. Think many tens of millions won't be spent on ads saying, "Congresswoman X voted for Obama's health care reform bill and then lied about it?" Of course they will. And the ads will be more than a little truthful.<br />
<br />
The democrats contend that deem and pass has been used before, and it has, but never for the purpose of avoiding a clear recorded vote on an issue of signficance, let alone an issue of monumental, epochal, country changing significance. So I don't really like it at all. But its constitutional, and if they do it, it will stick.<br />
<br />
In any event, in the end, who cares? Health care reform is BY FAR the biggest issue facing America. I mean BY FAR!! I actually don't think that can be seriously debated. Given that, and given that this (seriously flawed) effort represents a very significant first step towards getting rid of the health insurance companies and towards a rational health care system, all other concerns must yield. <br />
<br />
DEAR US HOUSE:<br />
<br />
PASS THE SENATE BILL, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO. NOW. <br />
<br />
FlyingpinkunicornsDaniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32793555.post-85225171128224241762010-03-18T12:01:00.000-04:002010-03-18T12:01:50.800-04:00<div>Israel and settlements<br />
<br />
For those that haven't heard, Israel was in the news last week for its insane, idiotic, and counterproductive settlement policies.<br />
<br />
Here's the background. In Israel, Obama is seen as not really pro-Israel. He dared to make a big speech in Cairo, and for other reasons. Anyway, Hillary is really liked in Israel on her own merits and because Clinton was and is popular there. Joe Biden is popular in Israel to those in the know. Anyway, Biden was there last week, and met with Prime Minister Netanyahu. He told him that we weren't happy about proposed settlement expansion plans. <u>While Biden was in Israel</u>, Netanyahu's Interior Minister, a right-winger from the religious Shas party named Eli Yishai. What's a bit ironic is that Shas has never been focused on the settlements at all, unlike Likud, but more on that some other day.</div><br />
The fact that this announcement took place while the US Vice President was in the country caused a stir. Israel apologized for the <u>timing</u> of the announcement, but not the substance of it. Admirable honesty. The only thing admirable about the whole Israeli settlement situation.<br />
<br />
Here's my take on settlements. I HATE them. I think they are hugely counter to Israel's national security interests (and America's!), as well as being counter to Israel's economic interests. I think, to quote Thomas Friedman, that the settlement policy is "insane," and has been for many years.<br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div>The US has long allowed Israel to go its idiotic way on the settlement issue. Oh, we bleat about and complain, and pound our chest and tut tut, but except briefly under Bush 41, when we threatened to suspend loan guarantees to Israel, we just talk and do nothing about it. Which is what Obama is highly likely to do. Which is why Israel feels free to keep building settlements. AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which is by far the largest and most organized Jewish pressure group, is mindlessly pro whatever an Israeli government does, especially a right-wing Israeli government. To AIPAC, its Israel right, wrong, or pro or contra US interests. AIPAC doesn't speak for mainstream American jews on settlements, which many American jews dislike or hate, but there it is. <br />
<br />
<br />
In the US, there is no gain politically in OPPOSING Israeli settlements. This was true even before 9-11. Let's be honest: Who in America loves a Palestinian? An Arab? And AFTER 9-11? Oops.<br />
<br />
So we give Israel around $3 billion a year in mostly military hardware, give it all sorts of diplomatic cover and get bitch slapped in return on the settlements. Year after year. If I were president, they'd be told that if they built so much as one more living room in occupied territories they'd be persona non gratta. We'd pull our ambassador, for good, cut as much aid as congress would let me, stop giving them cover in the UN, and I'd seriously consider selling high tech arms to Egypt and Saudi Arabia (not Iran, obviously). I'd show them that if you bitch slap the heavyweight champion, you just might get hurt badly. And hey, if I lost reelection? I'm sure I'd do fine on the lecture circuit, the boardroom circuit, etc. That's what a president with chutzpah would do. We're allies, these settlements are insane, and we bitterly oppose them. Build them at your peril.<br />
<br />
In return for this admittedly very tough stance, I'd be willing to consider modifying my views somewhat on the final status settlement negotiations. I have, strongly supported Israeli military actions to defend itself, in particular the war against Hezbullah in 2006. I supported peace talks with the Palestinians when they made sense and opposed them when they did not. I am HARDLY mindlessly anti-Israel!!!! But on settlements, I am mindlessly anti-settlement, and thus in the minds of some, anti-Israel. The settlements are, by all accounts hugely economically costly, soldiers in huge numbers don't want to be sent to defend them, they cause great diplomatic grief to the US, impede a final settlement, and generally PISS ME OFF.<br />
<br />
In a way, I admire what the Israelis do on settlements. They manage to do something hugely: (i) not in their ECONOMIC interests (protecting those settlements is hugely expensive, not to mention building them), (ii) pretty damn clearly not in their SECURITY interests; and (iii) which America, Israel's only real ally in the world, opposes (but does nothing about). After managing this trifecta, Israel then says, well, we did it, and we still love America. Israel's got cojones on the settlement issue. Short on brains, painfully short on long term planning, but long on cojones. And that, at least, is worth admiring. <br />
<br />
As for Bibi (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu), he's reasonably happy that the current Palestinian government has clamped down on the worst of the madness and sees Hamas as its blood enemy. And he'll probably be happy to dribble a few crumbs their way if they continue to "behave." But after the second intifada and the huge rift with Hamas, there's just no appetite in Israel for renewed grand talks. Even I oppose them, for heaven's sake!<br />
<br />
I called in the late 90s on Arafat to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state. I think the idea still holds merit. Let Israel fight the existence of a newly declared state, born under fire, occupied by an enemy. The irony won't be lost on anyone in the region. It would put the US in a very bad spot, get the Arabs to verbally support it, and very possibly result in some positive (for the Ps) changes on the ground. I don't really see the downside. At worst, false hopes are raised and nothing changes, which is probably the most likely outcome. But a Palestinian state will happen someday, barring some catastrophic disaster, the question is when and what the terms will be. So starting sooner rather than later is no bad thing in my view, especially with a seemingly responsible coterie of P's in leadership positions in the West Bank.<br />
<br />
So much of this could have been written 2 years ago, 5 years ago, or (with a few tense modifications and other tweaks) 15 years ago. We're frozen in time, because both sides are basically frozen in their positions. Israel proves daily what some deny-- that they are obsessed with settlements for their own sake-- greed-- simple greed (albeit badly misplaced), and faux security concerns (also misplaced). If the settlements weren't significant to the Israelis, they wouldn't keep building them! They tend to force moderate P leaders into the arms of the Islamic extremeists, exactly as Begin and others planned, so long ago. Sad, really.Daniel Nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867425192408917567noreply@blogger.com0