Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Wall St. Likes Trump but not as Much as it Likes Most Republicans

Kind of a good, bad news story:

“By 80 percent to 15 percent, respondents to the June CNBC Fed Survey think Clinton will win the election, virtually unchanged from the April survey. When it comes to whose policies are best for the stock market, Clinton bests Donald Trump 38 percent to 25 percent. A large group, totaling 38 percent of respondents, say they don’t know or are unsure”

“But 45 percent of the 41 respondents, who include economists, fund managers and analysts, say Trump’s policies are best for the economy, compared with just 30 percent for Clinton and 25 percent saying they don’t know or they’re unsure. That’s a dramatic improvement from the 4 percent who backed Trump’s economic policies in the last survey when John Kasich was Wall Street’s clear favorite and Ted Cruz was also still in the running.”

“The bad news for Trump is that 65 percent of respondents picked one of the three Republican candidates, compared with just 45 percent now choosing Trump. So Trump has received the bulk of the support on the economy from the other Republican candidates, but he falls about 20 points short of getting all of it. Some appear to have gone to Clinton, whose economic approval on Wall Street has doubled to 30 percent. But a larger percentage of respondents are also now unsure whose policies are better for the economy.”

As a matter of pure historical fact, the stock market usually does better under the Dems. But Wall St. usually prefers the GOP-for things like regulations, taxes, and entitlements.

But overall this is not good news for Trump as it shows that he's 20 points behind what a normal Republican should have right now.

You want some truly bad news for Trump it's Utah. The idea that Hillary Clinton is tied in Utah is simply shocking.

"Third poll in a row showing Clinton competing in Utah. It's official. Utah is a battleground state this year."

This is Mitt Romney's home state, the Mormon state. For Hillary Clinton to be tied with the Devil himself would be news.

Meanwhile a new national poll has Hillary up to a 7 point lead this week.

Trump is clearly taking a hit for all the bad coverage over attacking the judge, Trump U, and just generally being Trump.

Then maybe she gets a further bounce after the Dems unifying is factored in.

UPDATE: There's a theory that terrorism helps Trump. Not according to what the Wall Street Journal found today.

"WSJ today notes Clinton has 17 pt lead when asked who would better handle a crisis."


  1. O/T: Now that Bernie is for all practical purposes done for, I think Hillary should pivot slightly on the gun control issue and talk about closing loopholes, better background checks, etc. Talking about banning assault weapons I suspect won't help her, as every time that happens, sales spike, and more people become owners of such weapons and thus become #NeverHillary voters. Loopholes and background checks and no-fly list adjustments (on the other hand) probably have better than 50% support across the board. That's my guess, but I'm not sure of course.

    Here's the MCX that was used in the Orlando assault (again, it's not an AR-15 as many others have reported):

    Men (white, black and brown I suspect) see things like that in their favorite action movies, and they have to have one.

    You know my attitude: I'm a gun nut too, but I'm not going to argue that these incidents wouldn't plummet if we banned semi-automatic guns, especially those with detachable magazines. Flash-hiders, collapsible stocks, pistol grips... all that crap is really cosmetic (for the average gun buyer) and makes no difference at all. So selfishly I would like to keep my guns, but I have no doubt that if semi-autos with detachable magazines were banned then these kinds of mass shootings would become less devastating. At the very least it seems highly plausible. That's what disgusts me about my fellow gun nuts: when they decide politics trumps truth.

    If I was an animal loving fanatic, I'd be disgusted with organizations like PETA as well who argue there's no benefit to animal testing. Again it's politics trumps truth, and I hate that.

    But just for political reasons I worry that HRC may drive some potential voters into the Trump camp by getting on the "ban AR-15" or "ban assault weapons" band wagon. I'm not arguing against that as a reasonable position, I'm just wondering if it's a political winner for her. Things have changed since W was in office. (If you recall W was in favor of extending the 1994 Assault Weapons ban).

    I suppose conspiracy theorists might suggest that HRC and the gun manufacturers are in on it together: Obama calls his ISIS pals and orders another mass shooting, then Hillary talks about banning assault weapons, and Smith & Wesson (or Sig Sauer in this case (it wasn't an AR-15, but an "MCX" that was used in Orlando)), rake in the profits. Mwhahahahaha!!! ... then Obama, ISIS, HRC and the gun manufacturers split the profits. Lol.

    1. I gave you the wrong Vox article link. Here it is:

    2. I'm not suggesting HRC change her position on Assault Weapons (Like I say, I suspect it's a reasonable position), just that she stop talking about it so much. Again, maybe I'm wrong, and she' actually scores more political points by talking about it. I have no special insight. Perhaps not many new gun owners are created when these shootings happen... perhaps it's the same batch of nuts just adding to their collections. The Vox article is interesting on this point.

  2. I don't think she hurts herself. But anyway it's a core position of hers since the primary against Bernie.

    In addition I actually think it's the right one.

    Overall, Americans seem to trust her considerably more than Trump on the response.

    1. I hope you're right Mike. BTW, I had to laugh at this piece by Erickson:

      I didn't read the piece he referred to, but the quotes are funny (to someone like me who's also fired this kind of weapon and have been doing so since I was in the 8th grade). In fact an AR-15 is famous for having light recoil. It is loud though, so you should always wear hearing protection. Also it's not fully automatic (a "machine gun"). It is designed to be good at killing and maiming people though... that's what it's for. I can understand why Erickson is so exasperated here, but on the other side of the coin, are we insane making these available to everyone? Maybe we are.

      I think it's just a matter of probabilities: Take a nation of 330 million people, add in X number of firearms of X type, and you should be able to calculate how many gun deaths there will be each year and how many shootings and how many of each are criminal. It's just a matter of probabilities.

      I think the women of America will (eventually) have to be the grown ups here and make their men get rid of their dangerous toys... either through the ballot box or other means.

      Imagine if all that was available to Omar was an a late 18th century muzzle loading musket, shotgun, pistol or rifle? The kind the framers of the constitution probably had in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment. I'd guess the damage he could have done was about 1/100th of what he did.

    2. Tom and Mike

      Have you ever seen this guy Jim Jefferies?

      Your comment about muskets made me think of him

      The two segments are about 8 minutes each and they are pure gold

    3. Its the end of segment two that is relevant to the musket comment

    4. I'll take a look. Thanks Greg.

  3. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing. The Democrats are married to an assault weapon ban and I can't for the life of me figure out why you want to allow someone on a terrorist watchlist to get an assault weapon.

    But I don't think it hurts here-it helps here with gun control liberals and overall I think Americans are alarmed with Trump's wildeyed stuff.

    Has anyone ever sounded less Presidential than Trump as he went full on Birther again in response?

    Even if gun control were a net loser-not convinced it is-that's more than made up for by all the other things that help Hillary and hurt Trump.

    1. According to the latest poll HRC is beating Trump by 12 points. I don't want to him sink further till after the convention. Oddly though Trump beats HRC by 3 pts on who to trust more if we had another Orlando like terror strike.

    2. Here's a link:

    3. Also, what do you make of this?:

    4. And Pat Robertson said (regarding what conservative Christians should do) "we should sit on the sidelines and let them kill themselves." ("themselves" being the gays and the Muslims)

    5. That comment by the judge doesn't quite mean what they want it to mean.

      We've had stuff like this before. Is there a criminal probe of her? No.

      In fact the media has admitted what was obvious a year ago-she's not going to be indicted.

      Meanwhile, Trump even has his own email problem.

      Which is part of the problem with the whole Crooked Hillary meme.

      Anything that she's been accused of, he's been accused of a lot worse.

      He deleted his emails to hide them from a specific trial against himself

    6. See Robertson spoils the whole game for them. How do you drive a wedge between Muslims and gays when you can't hide the fact that you hate both of them?

  4. Rachael Maddow made me feel like less of a freak tonight: she did a whole bit on AR-15s vs Sig Sauer MCX rifles. I actually learned a few things from the segment myself (I don't know much about the Sig). She got one thing wrong: it's not an American company that makes it, it's a German company. However, she revealed that she has shot at AR-15 (which lots of different companies make) at a shooting range and has enjoyed doing it (!). So Rachael and I are on the same page there! =)

    She commented on how easy an AR-15 is to shoot... and that the MCX is advertised to be even easier (and it can be used with some AR-15 parts... like the "lower" receiver). So Rachael (I'll assert) and I and Erick Erickson agree about Mr. Kuntzman (unfortunate name) who said it "bruised his shoulder" when he fired it... not likely!

    Anyway, I was glad to hear Rachael do that segment and prove that not all liberals are unknowledgable about guns or are horrified to touch one or sound like Mr. Kuntzman. Lol...

    So funny. Seriously it does make me feel better. Thanks Rachael.

    I'm waiting for a journalist to try to interview the owner of the gun store that sold Omar the guns. That should be interesting. It'll be a bit of a grotesque shaming perhaps but on the other hand do we want stores discriminating against people based on how they look or what their name is?... but still, that should be a cringe worthy interview that I'd probably watch anyway though, if I can stand it, and if the owner is foolish enough to grant the interview.

    Hillary got the rifle model correct too in her speech (I noticed).

    1. Everyday Rachel impresses me just a little more. I've never gone shooting before.

      Hillary sounds like she knows what she's talking about too.

      Maybe those too should go shooting together. LOL

    2. Hmmm, ... probably not on camera though.

  5. This is disgusting: