Billionaire Bond investor predicts Trump win

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
imho, Green and Libertarian parties are a bit stronger than they were in 2016.

GPUS: Stein/Baraka => Howie/Walker
LP: Johnson/Weld => Jorgensen/Cohen

Personally, I am hoping for third party blunders...
This actually is a huge point. In 2016 the influence of 3rd party candidates essentially won the election from Trump but siphoning off votes in key states. The margin of victory for Trump was in some states less than 1% but the number of votes that went to Jill Stein and Gary Johnson was well over that and disproportionately people who would have voted Clinton most likely.

This year there really are no 3rd party candidates and the ones that are are mostly on the conservative side of things.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,352
126
What some bond investor says, or whether Trumpers are lying in their poll responses shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Look at the carnage (Oh! A favorite Trump word!). Thousands of immigrant kids separated from their parents, some permanently, housed in deplorable conditions. Two million civil servants -- some asked to work for nothing -- with a three-month loss of pay. National monuments scarred by building Trump's wall. The corruption of likely collusion and the very solid case of blackmailing the president of Ukraine. Obstruction of Congress. Obstruction of Justice. Moving toward 200,000 dead in one year for mismanaging the COVID epidemic and cancelling the pandemic response team Obama had put in place. Pre-presidential years of tax fraud and tax evasion. Consorting with hookers, then paying them off to keep quiet during the 2016 election campaign. Possible money laundering, using real-estate holdings. Using his office to make money, some of it from our own Treasury. Proposing to build a new FBI building to prevent his hotel competition from acquiring the same property.

"Bikers for Trump" and other slime can continue supporting him, but I don't believe a majority of the American people can stand for this. If so, the human race is doomed, either for ignorance, meanness and amorality and indifference.

No -- the only way he can win this election is to cheat. And this manipulation of the USPS, trying to turn political mail (and ballots) into bulk mail when it had First Class status is just one example of it. In some GOP-controlled states, they are limiting or reducing the drop-boxes in country registrar offices or other locations -- an option for COVID-wary voters who don't trust USPS under Trump. They're pulling out all stops, just to keep Trump out of several different criminal courtrooms.

If he steals the election, we're all doomed -- even the half-wit Trumpers, for even they have suffered, failing perhaps to admit it. I don't know how Kamala Harris can participate firsthand in holding Trump accountable, but we need a Nuremberg Redux. MSNBC needs a boost in its weekend ratings for a year-long series of LOCKUP: "From the White House to the Big House".

Otherwise, if he succeeds in stealing the election, you can strike through the words "RESIST! "IMPEACH!" "DEFEAT!" and replace them all with "OVERTHROW!"

And the question remains: Who will have the balls for it, and when does it start? I myself must budget my retirement pay to allow for guns and ammo.
California, sadly, has made it difficult for those late to the guns and ammo game. We create what we fear and liberals disarm themselves out of a fear of guns.

I love guns and have plenty, but ammo not so much since it's the objects, the guns themselves that I love, not shooting them. No place to shoot and insufficient reason to find a way to do so. I would have to register now to buy ammo and have to go into a store that sells and with covid rampant in my area, I avoid that. California fucked over buying on line. I also think that Trump will soon be gone and believe any fantasies I have about revolution are just my own paranoia

Anyway the real reason I'm posting is to say that I have been feeling your absence from the forum and am glad to see you post. Love your passion and worry that you feel such stress. I try to remember there is only love. If we think of the universe as a love song sung at a octave beyond our ability to hear the universe is ringing at a note at which Trump can't exist. I think of you as a good person, a friend.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126

This part of it is what I'm worried about:
""I think polls are very, very squishy right now because of the highly toxic political environment in which we live," Gundlach said. Gundlach said he’s come across data suggesting that about "two-thirds of conservatives or moderate conservatives say that they have lied about their support for Donald Trump either directly or by omission.""

I'm pretty sure there are people who are "ashamed" to publicly support Trump (in polling) but come Nov they will vote Repub no matter what cause ebil libruls. I'm really not sure there are many independents or undecided any more. I hope I'm wrong and the polls are accurate but his base is not insignificant and if there are enough people who will vote Repub no matter what in key states... :(

GOP is busy suppressing Democrat vote by cutting voting sites and rigging USPS to delay mail in ballots past deadlines.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,111
926
126
I think the EC will not be a point of contention after this election. Whoever wins the presidency will have won both the EC and popular vote this time.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,944
2,175
126
I think the EC will not be a point of contention after this election. Whoever wins the presidency will have won both the EC and popular vote this time.
It should stay a point of contention. It makes no sense that a state with a tiny population has a bigger say in an election outcome than one with a much larger population and economic engine.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,352
126
In 2016 I felt that Trump would win because Democrats had a lame message. I believe Democrats are just as lame today as they were in 2016. But I also think they will win because the American people got to see what fucking themselves looks like and it's not been that much fun. The country is asleep, politically, because it is psychologically ignorant, unaware that self hate directs everything. The result of sleep, in my opinion is oscillation, the swing of a pendulum, being a leaf in the breeze, knocked from pillar to post. We have been swinging to the right for a long time and the disaster that brings has grown to a magnitude that the will to unconsciousness can't any longer effectuate. I think we will be swinging now back the other way, still asleep but with new objects onto which to project our self hate, the Republican party which can't hide what it really is, corrupt, power hungry, and contemptuous of ordinary people. They are as worthless as we feel and we will be happy to kill them rather than we know that. Bye bye.

Anyway, that's my opinion.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Indus

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Maybe I expressed myself wrong. FOR whatever reason polls in important states appear to miss deplorables for whatever reason.
Again I am content to wait and see, maybe it was the news, maybe it was social media, maybe it was the polls. Regardless 2016 appeared Hillary was a lock until ahe wasn’t.

You're basing this conclusion off the results of one election, where the PV polling was off by only 1 point and the polling in those three critical swing states was off by 3-4 points. Or you could go back to 2012 where the polling was off by 1-3 points in Romney's direction.

You are making the mistake of ascribing too much significance to the most recent in a series of historical events, and you're not even remembering the most recent event correctly.

One thing which does seem to happen in literally every election cycle: conservatives have their "reasons" why the polling is way off in the dems' favor. In 2012, it was supposedly that the polls were under-sampling republicans. We all saw how that turned out, with the polling error actually favoring Romney.

This guy says he has "data" suggesting that two-thirds of conservatives would lie on an anonymous phone poll and state that they aren't voting for Trump. He's lying. There is no such data because what he is saying is next to impossible. Don't be a sucker for right wing propaganda.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,248
16,717
136
You're basing this conclusion off the results of one election, where the PV polling was off by only 1 point and the polling in those three critical swing states was off by 3-4 points. Or you could go back to 2012 where the polling was off by 1-3 points in Romney's direction.

You are making the mistake of ascribing too much significance to the most recent in a series of historical events, and you're not even remembering the most recent event correctly.

One thing which does seem to happen in literally every election cycle: conservatives have their "reasons" why the polling is way off in the dems' favor. In 2012, it was supposedly that the polls were under-sampling republicans. We all saw how that turned out, with the polling error actually favoring Romney.

This guy says he has "data" suggesting that two-thirds of conservatives would lie on an anonymous phone poll and state that they aren't voting for Trump. He's lying. There is no such data because what he is saying is next to impossible. Don't be a sucker for right wing propaganda.

Yup I know and we will see come November.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
There's a simple way to test if the "shy Trump voter" phenomenon is real. If the theory is that Trump voters are too embarrassed to admit that they are voting for Trump, then logically they should be less embarrassed to do so if they are responding to a robo-poll with no live person on the other end, or an online poll. Right?

If robo-polls and/or online polls were showing better results for Trump, this fact would have been made public a long time ago. Fivethirtyeight and other poll analysts would have written articles about it. But they haven't, because the phenomenon isn't real.
 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
11,880
8,304
136
Curious bit about Wisconsin and Florida. The polls are always +3 to +5 there and on top there is voter id nonsense.

So if polls show a 6 point lead.. translation is its a 1 or 2 point lead in reality in FL and WI.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,697
8,096
136
This is delusional thinking.

Ask yourself this - if Trump were up by an identical margin would you say the same thing? If not, you’re not thinking logically.
If you look at 2016 polls of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, right before the election, most of them put Clinton up by 3-7%.

You can blame Comey for the drop, but from Clinton +5% to Trump +1% makes me believe polls of those states were shit.

Now, in 2020, you have all of the various bullshit that is going to go down, so I give Trump +5% to just about any swing state. So if Biden is up +7%, I give 5% of that to Trump, and typically the result is that the difference between Trump and Biden is in the margin of error.

What I think isn't delusional. It's worst case scenario, which I can't imagine why everyone else isn't already using in 2020.
 

ponyo

Lifer
Feb 14, 2002
19,688
2,810
126
Who is this dude? And, he's a billionaire? meh
Jeffrey Gundlach is the new bond king. You might not know him but all the rich bond investors know and respect his opinion. When he talks, I listen to what he has to say. I don't always agree with him but he can move the market with his opinion.

But Gundlach should stick with bonds and market predictions. He called for W recovery in the stock market and so far we have a V. So he's been wrong with the market, and I think he'll be wrong with his Trump winning prediction. I'm expecting Biden victory.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,881
136
If you look at 2016 polls of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, right before the election, most of them put Clinton up by 3-7%.

You can blame Comey for the drop, but from Clinton +5% to Trump +1% makes me believe polls of those states were shit.

Now, in 2020, you have all of the various bullshit that is going to go down, so I give Trump +5% to just about any swing state. So if Biden is up +7%, I give 5% of that to Trump, and typically the result is that the difference between Trump and Biden is in the margin of error.

What I think isn't delusional. It's worst case scenario, which I can't imagine why everyone else isn't already using in 2020.
Final polling average in 2016 for PA was Clinton +2. In Michigan it was 3.5. All of those are within standard margins of error for polls. What you’re doing is taking your own margin of error, all in one direction, then adding their margin of error on top of it. This is absurd nonsense.

If you’re just going to make up numbers why even bother with polls in the first place? Just make up whatever number makes you happiest and use it. This literally the same thing as the ‘unskewed polls’ guy did in 2012 to convince himself Obama was going to lose. I get why he did it - the polls made him sad. I don’t get why liberals do it.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,095
37,308
136
Final polling average in 2016 for PA was Clinton +2. In Michigan it was 3.5. All of those are within standard margins of error for polls. What you’re doing is taking your own margin of error, all in one direction, then adding their margin of error on top of it. This is absurd nonsense.

If you’re just going to make up numbers why even bother with polls in the first place? Just make up whatever number makes you happiest and use it. This literally the same thing as the ‘unskewed polls’ guy did in 2012 to convince himself Obama was going to lose. I get why he did it - the polls made him sad. I don’t get why liberals do it.

There is a hardcore terror of complacency among liberals. We saw it for 2018 and it's back again. Doom is around every online survey and every robocall.

I'll believe democrats are complacent when we stop loading our pants at the sight of any poll that has Biden at +7 or less. It is certainly not reflected in the primary turnout figures so far.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,881
136
There is a hardcore terror of complacency among liberals. We saw it for 2018 and it's back again. Doom is around every online survey and every robocall.

I'll believe democrats are complacent when we stop loading our pants at the sight of any poll that has Biden at +7 or less. It is certainly not reflected in the primary turnout figures so far.
I agree. People keep saying we can’t act like Trump has no chance of winning but I have yet to meet a single person who actually thinks that.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,095
37,308
136
I agree. People keep saying we can’t act like Trump has no chance of winning but I have yet to meet a single person who actually thinks that.

Yup, of course it's possible for Trump to win. Nobody rational would suggest otherwise.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,697
8,096
136
Final polling average in 2016 for PA was Clinton +2. In Michigan it was 3.5. All of those are within standard margins of error for polls. What you’re doing is taking your own margin of error, all in one direction, then adding their margin of error on top of it. This is absurd nonsense.

If you’re just going to make up numbers why even bother with polls in the first place? Just make up whatever number makes you happiest and use it. This literally the same thing as the ‘unskewed polls’ guy did in 2012 to convince himself Obama was going to lose. I get why he did it - the polls made him sad. I don’t get why liberals do it.
I'm not just making up numbers, I'm assuming that what is actually going to happen isn't what the current polls show.

I'm taking the polls, assuming that they are not accurate like 2016, and building into it the fact that Governors/SoS of some swing states are going to do everything in their power to shut down voting, just like Trump is doing now with the USPS.

If I see Biden up by 5-7%, I am assuming that is actually a zero lead, and hence, a toss-up. If you want to go with the polls and start awarding EC votes now, I won't stop you. But Clinton looked to have it "tied up", and I'm not assuming anything this time.

My hope is that I'm dead wrong, obviously. I'd love for 370+ EC votes, 53 Senators, etc.
 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
11,880
8,304
136
If you look at 2016 polls of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, right before the election, most of them put Clinton up by 3-7%.

You can blame Comey for the drop, but from Clinton +5% to Trump +1% makes me believe polls of those states were shit.

Now, in 2020, you have all of the various bullshit that is going to go down, so I give Trump +5% to just about any swing state. So if Biden is up +7%, I give 5% of that to Trump, and typically the result is that the difference between Trump and Biden is in the margin of error.

What I think isn't delusional. It's worst case scenario, which I can't imagine why everyone else isn't already using in 2020.

Yes some polls had Obama up by 10 in FL and he won by a hair both times.

Even the monkey it up guy Ron De Santis was down by 3 and he won.

FL, PA, MI, WI polls are weird or maybe the polls are correct and people show up to vote but can't due to ID's and bullshit about 2mm causing imperfectly matching signatures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
It’s funny how both conservatives and liberals invent nonsense about the polls but while conservatives tell themselves stories to feel better liberals tell themselves stories to feel worse.

Yes they do, and it makes some sense. After 2016, some libs seem to prefer low expectations after expecting Clinton to win and facing that outcome.

Would have been better had they paid attention to the actual polls and not certain media analysts saying that Trump had a 2% chance to win. That created an unreasonably optimistic mindset and also may have contributed to low turnout among dem voters.
 

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
9,798
4,984
136
That created an unreasonably optimistic mindset and also may have contributed to low turnout among dem voters.
Nah. Russian interference turned off the black vote made the biggest difference in lower turnout. Next was group that couldn’t decide which was an acceptable choice between two horrible candidates.