2020 Presidential Election

[JNort]

I think the thread is largely centrist, and I think the most active and vocal participants seem to lean on the right side of centrist. Maybe the posters on the whole lean left, but I don't think the thread does in any real way, no.

We're in different bubbles, I maintain.

Woof that's a big misread then. Vast majority on this thread are left and not even by just a little bit. However those who contribute in this thread have gotten really talented at keeping their own biases out of their posts to avoid bans. Hence why many seem so centrist/moderate. As someone said upthread, I could count the right leaning ones probably on one hand.

[alteran]

Woof that's a big misread then. Vast majority on this thread are left and not even by just a little bit. However those who contribute in this thread have gotten really talented at keeping their own biases out of their posts to avoid bans. Hence why many seem so centrist/moderate. As someone said upthread, I could count the right leaning ones probably on one hand.

If the massive and overwhelming surplus of severe lefties “have gotten really talented at keeping their own biases out of their posts” to the point that “many seem centrist/moderate”, then I think we’ve reached the point of we’re just bantering semantics.

I’d argue you’re both right in this happenstance.

[dudog84]

What are the main issues which will most likely affect voter turnout and the “undecided” vote?

IMO, four of the top five are:

1. Income/wealth inequality
2. Trade war/tariffs
3. Healthcare
4. Immigration

The first two are primarily economic issues. IMO, the final two have major economic consequences.

You forgot tone of the discourse. The Pew Research Center found that even 41% of Rs are "exhausted" by Trump's statements. And that was weeks ago, it hasn't gotten better and will only get worse.

[bundabergdevil]

I actually think it shows our level of expertise that we are not talking about it here. I mean, no one who cares a lot about gun control is a swing voter. If you care about that issue then you are in one of the two camps and your vote is almost certainly already cast. If someone wants to make an argument that this past weekend shifted some voters who did not care into the "passionate about gun control (pro or con)" column, feel free, but I don't know really see it given that our nation seems to endure a horrific shooting of some sort every few months.
s

Couple of things:

(1) As I said above, I think that things *could* be different politically this go round because of the inter-party criticism we've seen from other Republicans in light of El Paso and Dayton and because the NRA has fractured to a point that it may well be a non-factor in 2020. If Republicans move more centrally on gun control, what does that do to Trump's harder right (and more pro 2A) base?

There's probably another way to frame and think about this --- if Trump follows through on gun control executive action or signs a bill into law, how would his base react? I'd argue that next to some sort of effort to expand abortion rights or grant amnesty to illegal aliens, there's not much he could do that would be a bigger betrayal of his base. And when politicians betray there bases, there's blowback that usually translates into fewer motivated voters, donors, and the issue groups like the NRA communicating to their members...

There was a perception (at least, pre-sandy hook gun rights expanded under Obama) that Obama was the most anti-gun president in history and the greatest gun salesman. The NRA invested $30M to get Trump elected but he has displayed more empathetic responses to these shooting and at various times has stated support for background checks, red flag laws, etc...I think there's an argument that if Trump does something here, he'd actually be angering the 75-80% of Republicans who believe it's important to protect gun owner rights.

I agree with your other points, that swing voters won't care too much about this. All that being said, even if the results are the same, partisan perceptions have gotten so heated that I think it's only possible for a Republican president to sign gun control legislation...it's just a big political risk with his base.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

What are the main issues which will most likely affect voter turnout and the “undecided” vote?

IMO, four of the top five are:

1. Income/wealth inequality
2. Trade war/tariffs
3. Healthcare
4. Immigration

The first two are primarily economic issues. IMO, the final two have major economic consequences.

I would say given the past two weeks, it would be logical to add the topic of terrorism and/or gun control. Clearly, those issues are at the forefront of people's minds right now.

[OldPhiKap]

What are the main issues which will most likely affect voter turnout and the “undecided” vote?

IMO, four of the top five are:

1. Income/wealth inequality
2. Trade war/tariffs
3. Healthcare
4. Immigration

The first two are primarily economic issues. IMO, the final two have major economic consequences.

I think the top five will be:

1. Trump
2. Healthcare
3. Trump
4. Socialism v. Capitalism
5. Trump

This is a referendum election if I've ever seen one.

[bundabergdevil]

I believe that between now and the next debate there will be a lot of baby kissing and hand shaking (but hopefully no hair sniffing...looking at you Joe) in Iowa, NH, etc. just curious if we have any posters in those states with plans to attend. Would welcome first hand accounts. Trump rally report backs also welcome of course...but I’m very curious to hear about the Dem candidates’ retail politic skills and how present they are.

[left_hook_lacey]

I would say given the past two weeks, it would be logical to add the topic of terrorism and/or gun control. Clearly, those issues are at the forefront of people's minds right now.

Sadly, unless we (God forbid) have another incident between now and election time, I think most voters will have basically filed this away in their "another tragic shooting" folder and will have largely forgotten about it.

Right now, I think Trump is really playing with fire with the China tariffs and that could be his undoing. I know being tough on trade deficits with other country's was one of his talking points to get elected, but it wasn't his biggest talking point. I'm not sure why he's chosen this moment to really dig his heels in on the trade war. What does he expect to gain? The economy is one of his biggest allies right now, so why throw water on a roaring camp fire? Between the wall getting stalled, the left mercilessly trying to tie mass shootings around his neck, he can't afford to put his biggest friend, the economy, in danger right now.

As others have said up thread, China is better suited to hold out on this than we are. I'm all for reducing trade deficits, bringing jobs back home and having Made in the USA mean something again, but it took decades to get where we are with China(and India for that matter), we can't get back to 1950's manufacturing in America overnight.

Also, we use too much junk. America can't just start making all the crap that is made in China, the math just isn't there. American's are addicted to useless crap, and until that changes, we are married to outsourced products.

Anyway, I think however the outcome goes on the trade war, so goes Trump's 2020 bid.

[OldPhiKap]

Right now, I think Trump is really playing with fire with the China tariffs and that could be his undoing. I know being tough on trade deficits with other country's was one of his talking points to get elected, but it wasn't his biggest talking point. I'm not sure why he's chosen this moment to really dig his heels in on the trade war. What does he expect to gain? The economy is one of his biggest allies right now, so why throw water on a roaring camp fire? Between the wall getting stalled, the left mercilessly trying to tie mass shootings around his neck, he can't afford to put his biggest friend, the economy, in danger right now.

As others have said up thread, China is better suited to hold out on this than we are.

The reports I have seen indicate that this escalation of a trade war with China was not due to any deep planning. Trump was upset when he learned that his negotiators did not make more progress in their talks with China, and Trump unilaterally decided on the spot to implement tariffs over the objection of most of his advisors (not Peter Navarro, I am sure).

This was an impulsive reaction without a lot of strategic thought as best I can tell. And as you suggest, it would make absolutely no sense to do this for strategic electoral purposes.

[Jeffrey]

The reports I have seen indicate that this escalation of a trade war with China was not due to any deep planning. Trump was upset when he learned that his negotiators did not make more progress in their talks with China, and Trump unilaterally decided on the spot to implement tariffs over the objection of most of his advisors (not Peter Navarro, I am sure).

This was an impulsive reaction without a lot of strategic thought as best I can tell. And as you suggest, it would make absolutely no sense to do this for strategic electoral purposes.

OTOH, it might make strategic sense to do it right after a Fed rate cut, if Trump is trying to substantially increase the odds of more desired rate cuts. His competition is manipulating currency, he cannot manipulate rates without the Feds assistance.

[howardlander]

I'm all for reducing trade deficits, bringing jobs back home and having Made in the USA mean something again, but it took decades to get where we are with China(and India for that matter), we can't get back to 1950's manufacturing in America overnight.

The reality is that most of the manufacturing job losses are because of automation, not outsourcing. I believe, but I don't have time to look it up now, that the value of the output of US manufacturing in dollars is as high as ever, it's just that we need many fewer workers to produce that output. I'm not sure how tariffs help that problem or what the solution is. Perhaps we should ban industrial robots? (not a serious suggestion BTW)

Howard

[OldPhiKap]

OTOH, it might make strategic sense to do it right after a Fed rate cut, if Trump is trying to substantially increase the odds of more desired rate cuts. His competition is manipulating currency, he cannot manipulate rates without the Feds assistance.

You know more about this area than I do, but if a trade and currency war causes the stock market to fall, GDP to slow and the farming sector to seize up -- all of which are foreseeable potential consequences of this -- what practical good is another half point off prime to his re-election bid? Money is still incredibly cheap by historical standards either way, and if the economy is faltering banks will presumably tighten up on credit risky loans while employers lay off or slow hiring.

Asking, not stating. Obviously. Thanks!

[budwom]

You know more about this area than I do, but if a trade and currency war causes the stock market to fall, GDP to slow and the farming sector to seize up -- all of which are foreseeable potential consequences of this -- what practical good is another half point off prime to his re-election bid? Money is still incredibly cheap by historical standards either way, and if the economy is faltering banks will presumably tighten up on credit risky loans while employers lay off or slow hiring.

Asking, not stating. Obviously. Thanks!

yeah, money is plenty cheap, cutting rates further will stimulate little if anything. As many CEOs have mentioned, they don't build factories because rates went down (assuming they're already low) or because taxes were cut, but rather because customer demand increased.

[Jeffrey]

You know more about this area than I do, but if a trade and currency war causes the stock market to fall, GDP to slow and the farming sector to seize up -- all of which are foreseeable potential consequences of this -- what practical good is another half point off prime to his re-election bid? Money is still incredibly cheap by historical standards either way, and if the economy is faltering banks will presumably tighten up on credit risky loans while employers lay off or slow hiring.

Asking, not stating. Obviously. Thanks!

First and foremost, you're much more knowledgeable about finance & economics than you give yourself credit! I wish we were neighbors and could wax poetic in person.

China should be able to save some sales by manipulating their currency. However, that shifts some of the 10% tariff burden from US buyers to Chinese sellers.

Lower rates usually (Japan was a much more complex and problematic situation) generate growth and inflation. It's not coincidence there's now approximately $13 trillion of negatively yielding government debt issued by Europe and Japan. The investment industry is paid to put the money to work and stocks become, or stay, the best relative game.

What's a basic way to value a stock? Discounted cash flows. What cash flow? Let's use future earnings. So, the current value of IBM should be the sum of all future IBM earnings discounted to current value. What's the discount rate? Let's use the risk-free rate (for example, the 3 month US Treasury rate). So, as the risk-free rate decreases future IBM earnings increase in current value. The sum of these higher, current value, future earnings makes the current theoretical value of IBM stock higher.

[Jeffrey]

yeah, money is plenty cheap, cutting rates further will stimulate little if anything. As many CEOs have mentioned, they don't build factories because rates went down (assuming they're already low) or because taxes were cut, but rather because customer demand increased.

IMO, a prudent CEO borrows cheap money and buys back their stock, if they consider it undervalued.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/31/sant...gineering.html

[budwom]

IMO, a prudent CEO borrows cheap money and buys back their stock, if they consider it undervalued.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/31/sant...gineering.html

yes, plenty are doing that...i'm just saying that the clout has been taken out of rate cuts, another cut or two isn't going to unleash gobs of pent up demand.

[OldPhiKap]

First and foremost, you're much more knowledgeable about finance & economics than you give yourself credit! I wish we were neighbors and could wax poetic in person.

China should be able to save some sales by manipulating their currency. However, that shifts some of the 10% tariff burden from US buyers to Chinese sellers.

Lower rates usually (Japan was a much more complex and problematic situation) generate growth and inflation. It's not coincidence there's now approximately $13 trillion of negatively yielding government debt issued by Europe and Japan. The investment industry is paid to put the money to work and stocks become, or stay, the best relative game.

What's a basic way to value a stock? Discounted cash flows. What cash flow? Let's use future earnings. So, the current value of IBM should be the sum of all future IBM earnings discounted to current value. What's the discount rate? Let's use the risk-free rate (for example, the 3 month US Treasury rate). So, as the risk-free rate decreases future IBM earnings increase in current value. The sum of these higher, current value, future earnings makes the current theoretical value of IBM stock higher.

First of all, thanks. And yes, we'd enjoy some nice chats on a number of topics over tunes and beverages.

On your points, I guess it depends on where you see the balance of risks. Lower interest rates allow corporations to buy back stock, undertake capital improvements, acquire companies or needed labor, etc. And of course it allows the end consumer to borrow funds cheaply to fuel purchases of the end products being produced. All good so far.

Now, what happens when the price of products rise due to 10% in new taxes (tariffs)? Or a chief competitor can now make products even cheaper (through currency devaluation) than it does now? Or farms (and the chain of reliant businesses) start to falter? Growth has to slow from these it seems because the consumer pulls back on spending and the credit ratings of the borrowers starts to constrict. Companies lay off employees to keep margins if they don't want to raise their prices due to the increased input costs or if sales fall. If growth contracts, the long-term earning estimates of companies are reduced and/or the cap rate increases due to increased risk (thus lowering the valuation of the business, at least for the kinds with which I deal).

The question seems to be -- after a decade-long bull market and cheap money, is the appetite for continued cheap money sufficient to offset raising taxes (tariffs) on products throughout the chain so that the economy keeps growing at 2.5% or 3%? Or have companies largely made use of the cheap capital at this point, and now simply worry about being able to maintain their margins and service the debt they have already incurred? And more to the heart of the thread -- why risk this at all as President unless you are seriously concerned that the economy is about to stall without such a drastic gamble?

All interesting stuff, although my knowledge is likely just enough to be dangerous despite your kind and appreciated words.

[Jeffrey]

yes, plenty are doing that...

... and, ever more CEOs will, if money is cheaper and stock prices decrease, thus stabilizing stock prices. The rate cuts help Trump fight the trade war without destroying the US stock market. I think he was more strategic, with his 10% tariff timing, than anyone else here gives him credit.

[Indoor66]

He might even be a smart fella.

[bundabergdevil]

... and, ever more CEOs will, if money is cheaper and stock prices decrease, thus stabilizing stock prices. The rate cuts help Trump fight the trade war without destroying the US stock market. I think he was more strategic, with his 10% tariff timing, than anyone else here gives him credit.

He might even be a smart fella.

I'm certainly willing to eat my crow on this but, setting aside the financial maneuvers, I'm struggling to see what a substantive declaration of victory could look like for the U.S. here in the next year. While Trump has touted closing the trade deficit, what the U.S. is really after - and what we've been after for some time - is structural changes in the Chinese economic model that prevent their continued hijacking of U.S. IP and tech know-how. A lot of their decades-long strategic plans have been predicated on closing various technology gaps through almost any means necessary. My guess is the Chinese government is perfectly content riding the long trade negotiation cycles and betting 2020 brings change (though a few of the Dem candidates may be worse from their perspective).

I guess some sort of agreement in principal could be reached on these measures as well as long-term agreements for China to purchase more U.S. goods to close the gap but would it happen in time for 2020 election? According to the Farm Bureau, from 2000 to 2017, U.S. agricultural exports to China increased by 700% but since 2017, they've plummeted more than 50%. Trump has already said he would extend direct payments to farmers in 2020, which ain't a good look.


The next round of trade talks are in September and that us a littler over a 1+ year out from 2020. If traditional diplomacy and negotiation cycles hold, and typical arguments abound, they could be arguing over minor language for half that, let alone substantive market carve outs. Again, maybe some sort off agreement in principal...?