2020 Presidential Election

[Acymetric]

Stop and frisk could be spun a lot of different ways. I don't know how it will play to the Democratic party base but there are many Democrats in NYC who were generally supportive of it, with some tweaks, but those who oppose it are a lot more vocal. As a New Yorker who lived here through the stop and frisk era I would be happy to discuss via PM - I don't think I can go into much more detail without going too deep into PPB.

It is almost certainly less popular outside NY, and I'm not sure "I can bring in the NY vote!" is a strong selling point for a Democrat.

Was listening to NPR a bit ago as they were announcing this, and they were speculating the opposite, saying that she instantly vaults into top VP pick territory.

I would be...maybe not shocked, but certainly surprised if Harris got the VP nod. I certainly don't see any justification for NPR suggesting she is now a top candidate. Doesn't bring very many supporters, doesn't really energize the base. She provides some representation of key groups, but the groups she provides representation for evidently weren't very excited about her as a candidate so I'm not sure that turns out to be worth much. And it's been harped to death, but being a prosecutor probably has a lot to do with that, and isn't going away.

[dudog84]

It is almost certainly less popular outside NY, and I'm not sure "I can bring in the NY vote!" is a strong selling point for a Democrat.



I would be...maybe not shocked, but certainly surprised if Harris got the VP nod. I certainly don't see any justification for NPR suggesting she is now a top candidate. Doesn't bring very many supporters, doesn't really energize the base. She provides some representation of key groups, but the groups she provides representation for evidently weren't very excited about her as a candidate so I'm not sure that turns out to be worth much. And it's been harped to death, but being a prosecutor probably has a lot to do with that, and isn't going away.

"But she can bring in the California vote!"

Agreed. When this started, I would have given her a 75% chance of being on the ticket, either P or VP. Now I'd put the odds at 5%.

[rthomas]

One of my favorite Duke athletes, Reggie Love, endorses Pete Buttigieg.

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/wa...te-74553413842

[CrazyNotCrazie]

It is almost certainly less popular outside NY, and I'm not sure "I can bring in the NY vote!" is a strong selling point for a Democrat.

Bloomberg is playing the long game. He is trying to figure out how to get through the primary process because he is a better candidate for the general election than the primaries. He appeals to moderate Democrats and the never-Trump Republicans (such as Bret Stephens of the NY Times). If spun correctly, stop and frisk (which, by the way, is a horrible name for the policy), could really appeal to this group. And there were actually a significant amount of minority group members whose neighborhoods were targeted by stop-and-frisk who supportive of it because they felt it was cleaning up their neighborhoods. Unfortunately for Bloomberg, he has done a really poor job of spinning the policy, and by recently caving and saying it was a bad policy, he didn't really help himself with any constituencies.

Also unfortunately for Bloomberg, the average voter does not have the bandwidth to look at a candidate's whole platform, particularly now when there are so many candidates, and instead just focuses on a few issues - Bloomberg's ads are clearly trying to show his breadth of positions on a lot of different areas, because as things stand now most people know him as a really rich, not very charismatic, Wall Street guy who implemented stop and frisk, and that is not going to win him any elections.

[Jeffrey]

Bloomberg is playing the long game. He is trying to figure out how to get through the primary process because he is a better candidate for the general election than the primaries. He appeals to moderate Democrats and the never-Trump Republicans (such as Bret Stephens of the NY Times).

Agreed. IMO, he is the big picture opposite of Trump. Mostly socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

I know you don’t agree, but Trump is mostly fiscally liberal. You’re probably not paying sufficient attention to 2019 actual and 2020 projected government spending and debt. It basically looks like Obama’s when he was battling the Great Recession. It’s been good for the recent and current economy.

[OldPhiKap]

Agreed. IMO, he is the big picture opposite of Trump. Mostly socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

I know you don’t agree, but Trump is mostly fiscally liberal. You’re probably not paying sufficient attention to 2019 actual and 2020 projected government spending and debt. It basically looks like Obama’s when he was battling the Great Recession. It’s been good for the recent and current economy.

I would argue that Bill Clinton in his second term was the most fiscally conservative president we have had since Reagan. Of course, having Newt running the Hill helped with that.

Neither Trump, nor W, were fiscal conservatives.

[Jeffrey]

I would argue that Bill Clinton in his second term was the most fiscally conservative president we have had since Reagan. Of course, having Newt running the Hill helped with that.

Neither Trump, nor W, were fiscal conservatives.

As usual, I strongly agree. You have a really solid understanding of finance and economics!

Trump is substantially more fiscally liberal than W. It’s really helped support the economy and equities.

Remember last summer when rates inverted and many were predicting a 2019 or 2020 recession?

[dudog84]

I would argue that Bill Clinton in his second term was the most fiscally conservative president we have had since Reagan. Of course, having Newt running the Hill helped with that.

Neither Trump, nor W, were fiscal conservatives.

I don't consider Reagan fiscally conservative. He's the one who started the runaway deficit spending. The annual deficit more than doubled under him. Yes, I know, $150 - $200 billion/year is quaint by today's standards. But it adds up to trillions quickly.

As usual, I strongly agree. You have a really solid understanding of finance and economics!

Trump is substantially more fiscally liberal than W. It’s really helped support the economy and equities.

Remember last summer when rates inverted and many were predicting a 2019 or 2020 recession?

Don't get ahead of yourself. We're not even through 2019 yet. The Fed can't lower the rate much more to prop things up, and with Trump stating that he's not really looking to make a deal with China in the next year things could get hinky.

[golfinesquire]

Bloomberg is playing the long game. He is trying to figure out how to get through the primary process because he is a better candidate for the general election than the primaries. He appeals to moderate Democrats and the never-Trump Republicans (such as Bret Stephens of the NY Times). If spun correctly, stop and frisk (which, by the way, is a horrible name for the policy), could really appeal to this group. And there were actually a significant amount of minority group members whose neighborhoods were targeted by stop-and-frisk who supportive of it because they felt it was cleaning up their neighborhoods. Unfortunately for Bloomberg, he has done a really poor job of spinning the policy, and by recently caving and saying it was a bad policy, he didn't really help himself with any constituencies.

Also unfortunately for Bloomberg, the average voter does not have the bandwidth to look at a candidate's whole platform, particularly now when there are so many candidates, and instead just focuses on a few issues - Bloomberg's ads are clearly trying to show his breadth of positions on a lot of different areas, because as things stand now most people know him as a really rich, not very charismatic, Wall Street guy who implemented stop and frisk, and that is not going to win him any elections.

A little history here. The name "Stop and Frisk" comes from the police form, which was created long before the iteration of police interactions that are now referred to as Stop and Frisk, and which was intended as a way to document interactions with members of the public that did not lead to arrests. We can debate the merits of a more aggressive policing policy and certainly there are interesting and compelling arguments on either side. But, the reality of how it worked on the street and what sergeants were telling the rank and file to do during roll call very much violated the New York state constitution. Both the mayor and the PC had been told that and both did not listen. So, Bloomberg actually is not wrong that the practice was bad policy, but he definitely could come up with a better way to make clear that unconstitutional stops won't be tolerated while interactive community policing is a must. That would probably not satisfy the really woke but then again no one is sure that they will vote in enough numbers to allow a Democrat to beat Trump.

[JasonEvans]

Let's be careful about getting into a debate about "Stop and Frisk" or the fiscal policy of past presidents and how such policy may or may not impact the rest of the economy. I'm not saying these topics are off limits, but we really need to be sure we confine those conversations to the election status of current folks running for President.

Thanks for understanding...

[Jeffrey]

Don't get ahead of yourself. We're not even through 2019 yet. The Fed can't lower the rate much more to prop things up, and with Trump stating that he's not really looking to make a deal with China in the next year things could get hinky.

I sincerely hope many, many more investors agree with you than me!

Rates today...

The two-year Treasury is at 1.59 percent.
The five-year Treasury is at 1.63 percent.
The 10-year Treasury is at 1.80 percent.

My biggest current equity concern is the D’s choice. That’s why I bought insurance.

[golfinesquire]

Let's be careful about getting into a debate about "Stop and Frisk" or the fiscal policy of past presidents and how such policy may or may not impact the rest of the economy. I'm not saying these topics are off limits, but we really need to be sure we confine those conversations to the election status of current folks running for President.

Thanks for understanding...

Sorry Jason. I thought I was on the safe side. If anyone has questions about Stop and Frisk, I am happy to address them in a PM, but otherwise I will keep a discussion off the board, other than in context of Bloomberg's presidential platform.

[luvdahops]

Interesting editorial piece from yesterday's WSJ. William Galston is a fellow at Brookings, and one of the token non-conservatives among the WSJ opinion page writers.

Hoping this is no longer behind firewall, but will note a few big takeaways relative to the 2020 election:

-The portion of the overall electorate that identifies as centrist (43%) is larger than those identifying as either right/conservative (34%) or left/liberal (23%)

-An even number of Democrats identify with the left and center

-Centrist positions command a plurality on a number of issues, including abortion, climate change and gun ownership

-There is a strong consensus across party and ideological lines that the Federal government should do more to provide healthcare and secure retirement for elderly Americans

None of these points likely come as a surprise to folks on DBR, but in my mind, they reinforce the extent to which our current partisan politics ignore prevailing views

https://www.wsj.com/articles/polariz...le-11575417229

[sagegrouse]

I would argue that Bill Clinton in his second term was the most fiscally conservative president we have had since Reagan. Of course, having Newt running the Hill helped with that.

Neither Trump, nor W, were fiscal conservatives.

Also tax receipts benefited from the dot.com boom in the late 90's. Almost all the options exercised were taxed as ordinary income.

[mattman91]

If the Senate is the jury for the trial, shouldn't all of them need to recuse themselves?

Trump is probably thrilled.

Take 2/3 of the top three candidates off the campaign trail in the most crucial period of the Democratic primary. Huge political blunder by the Dems IMO. They know it won't end in removal.

[mattman91]

Trump is probably thrilled.

Take 2/3 of the top three candidates off the campaign trail in the most crucial period of the Democratic primary. Huge political blunder by the Dems IMO. They know it won't end in removal.

**Not a statement of approval/disapproval of impeachment, merely an observation**

[dudog84]

Trump is probably thrilled.

Take 2/3 of the top three candidates off the campaign trail in the most crucial period of the Democratic primary. Huge political blunder by the Dems IMO. They know it won't end in removal.

But the 2 it's taking off are the very liberal candidates. I assume you think being off the trail will hurt their candidacies (I concur). Therefore it helps a moderate D get the nomination, who I think most will agree will be a tougher opponent for Trump in the general.

Pelosi is dumb like a fox.

[bundabergdevil]

One of my favorite Duke athletes, Reggie Love, endorses Pete Buttigieg.

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/wa...te-74553413842

Code for Obama’s vote given their history?

[dudog84]

Code for Obama’s vote given their history?

Not hardly. I doubt any but a very, very small contingent of Duke people give this any thought.

[mattman91]

But the 2 it's taking off are the very liberal candidates. I assume you think being off the trail will hurt their candidacies (I concur). Therefore it helps a moderate D get the nomination, who I think most will agree will be a tougher opponent for Trump in the general.

Pelosi is dumb like a fox.

Maybe so. But can't they subpoena Joe?