A few weeks back you said the mid-terms was not a wave (only 20 seats won). I provided links and even stated that you are calling the elections too early and that it is indeed a wave among all commonly accepted terms (and the democratic party will win probably 35, turned out to be 40).
Today you said the wins are getting narrower, and the democratic party is doomed.
I pointed you to a link that says that the democratic party won by the largest margin ever in terms of votes.
You now want to make everything in view of the seats won in 2010 elections which was a low turnout election that allowed the republicans to gerrymander based on their win. 2010 was atypical. Democrats were complacent and didnât show, Republicans were motivated.
The number of votes tell you how people are trending. Republicans are losing by larger and larger vote share which tells you where the country is shifting. They are remaining in power because of gerrymandering and the outsized influence of the rural states in our electoral system.
BTW i use multiple information sources. There have been multiple studies that show that Fox news watchers are actually more poorly informed then people who donât consume any news at all. the blatant spin and mis-direction of Fox news does a grave injustice to everyone
I donât believe I ever said 20. I said 35 and provided provided an objective definition of a wave which was 48 minimum.
Number of votes is not the determining factor as Democrats should know by now. We live in a republic, not a democracy (thank God). This is not going to change in the foreseeable because changing the constitution would require the consent of 35 of 50 states.
Until the Democrats figure out how to expand their appeal beyond their urban base they will continue to be more a regional party that a national one. They may have 2008-like victories here and there, at times of crisis, but other than that they show no signs of a revival. A party that loses everything over 8 years - at the state level, at the federal level, and then finally loses the presidency to Donald Trump of all people needs to engage in some serious self-examination and than re-invent itself. There is no sign as of yet that this is happening.
Powell is not good at talking. He should be more vague and more careful with his wording. In October, he said itâs a long way to neutral but today he says itâs just below normal.
There are a few possibilities:
Powell is manipulating the market and politics purposely.
Economy had a dramatic change from October to November. (This is unlikely).
Fed research team had new discovery and new data thatâs dramatically different.
Anyway Powell talks too much. He should avoid talking too much about rate and only talk about economy in a vague way so that nobody can understand him. He is overly transparent and talked too much. Does the market gyrations makes him feel more important and satisfying?
Market action today confirms no one really cares about China; itâs all about interest rates.
My view is that we are in a more or less permanent state of low rates. We have over 20 trillion in debt. That is only sustainable if we pursue policies and are pro-growth and allow a modest amount of inflation to eat away at the real value of that debt. We also need to be mindful of the costs of servicing the debt, which rise with interest rates. The Fed would never admit to considering such things but I find it impossible to believe they donât. Look at where rates were set the last time the economy was this strong.
You are right, but Iâd rather have bought Aapl at below $10 and experiencing horrible time right now than buying it at this level and tasting a boon.
There were signs last week Fed will raise rate maybe only 3 more times or even less. It was widely reported on Hong Kong media. Why is it that Americans themselves didnât notice? USD has been weakening in the last few days. Remember Alex Wongâs interview?
