Even worse than it being wrong, is that by nature of the tool it looks right.

In a speculative market, which is the reality in which we both exist, share value can absolutely be divorced from a balance sheet. As you’ve pointed out, that is the case here.

So what is the speculative value to an investor? Why ISN’T it zero?

If you have a theory better than “investors believe he’ll use his position as president to increase the value of his own holdings if he wins” I’d be curious to hear it.

Maybe it’s by making presidential decisions contingent on “friendly actions” like buying shares if you’re a foreign nation or even a domestic interest. Maybe he’ll award government communication contracts.

Super interested in an alternative explanation, though.

Oh for sure. It’s effectively been a proxy for election betting since it’s inception. Investors know if he wins it’s a vehicle for people to buy his favour by adding demand pressure. As long as Trump thinks he might win, he has to keep his position.

I’m all for dunking on Trump, but you (or anyone here) should read the article.

It didn’t trigger because the price was tanking. It triggered because it was going up too fast.

It was on news of Trump saying he wasn’t going to sell.

LITERALLY 1484

No efficient way.

If you’re so absent from reality that this far in you still haven’t decided if Trump is a bad guy or not, I’m sure you’re statistically more likely to have an ex wife.

And I agree that anyone who is comfortable saying “my bitch ex wife” on a public forum is already for Trump, but there are plenty of people with ex wives they don’t want to be reminded of.

Again, I’m not going to sugar coat this: the world is unfair and sexist.

People hold emotionality against people differently based on gender, so yeah, I do.

The minute she starts to sound like “my bitch ex-wife” that’s going to do something visceral.

It’s not right or fair, but it is.

Election outcome priced in?

If you’re deploying weapons on your own territory to reduce the operational capacity of an invading force then it’s by definition defending your country.

If you have a problem w/ this you’re going to have to cycle to the next argument because this one is nonsense. NEXT.

Racially agnostic support for exceptional achievers still exists, it’s not an either-or proposition.

I think you could argue that affirmative action has no place in a society that has overcome the systemic issues caused by generation of racism. But that isn’t the society in which we live. I hope to live in a world where one could abolish it and everyone can agree that the time has come. It isn’t now.

“If we don’t solve the fraud, Republican voters votes will not be counted. Solving the fraud is therefore the most important thing for Republican politicians to address”

Is this what your saying he said? Trying to decipher his dementia is quite a task.

Also a good point that a critical measure for the leader of the free world in the mind of a Trump staffer is how strong the nickname game is.

Delegates are bound to support in all good conscience the person for whom their primaries results reflect.

This bizzare turn of phrase has been largely been untested in the courts… But if, in good conscience, the delegates believe that the results of the primary were for the candidate who was best poised to defeat Trump (as in, they’re not supporting Biden specifically as much as they are against Trump, for example) then they could argue that based on events that have occured since the primaries that they are in good conscience representing those wishes.

So, I dunno. I’m very glad Biden took the high road here, but I am unconvinced that this was truely set in stone. This is the exact justification for having delegates choose the nominee in the first place; that in certain critical conditions they can act in good faith.

The truth is still the truth, even if there is no material difference in the implications.

I agree in principle with what you’re saying.

However, a sitting president is not entitled to the nomination. It’s happened before where a sitting president is denied a nomination for a second term, and it’s been given to someone else in the party instead.

If it had gone that way with Biden though, I think the optics would have been so bad that there would be no hopes of salvaging the election though, so it’s still praiseworthy that he dropped.

For transparency, I’m Canadian, but our situation is pretty much the same: Far right candidate projected to win next election, “meh, status quo centrist” in power now, people letting projections deter them from voting, primitive “electoral college” lite making your votes less effective based on where you live, etc etc…

We do trend towards “looking over the fence” politically. If Biden’s step-down gamble pays off, it’s possible we could get a similar thing to happen here which could be good. So, we’re all watching and hoping that we don’t end up neighbouring a country with a fascist leader…

I think the availability of polling is a major reason why people don’t bother to vote. If they’re reasonably sure their person will win, they’re less likely to bother. Or, if it looks like it’s going to be a blowout and they don’t think one vote will matter, same thing.

Voting day should be a federal holiday, there should be a tax incentive to vote like in Australia, and polling reporting should be delayed by 1 month.

Polls are surveys. They answer the question “what do people say they’re going to do?”

Extrapolating results strictly from polling comes with a pretty large caveat: it assumes people are going to do what they say they’re going to do.

Another large caveat is that there are issues with representation, as the group of people who will actually answer their phone is a pretty serious demographic skew.

Oddsmakers use polling results as a COMPONENT of their determination, but they’re free to aggregate against whatever else they see as relevant, things like history. Or to weigh which states polling is most effective. Or how which day of the week affects voter turnout on a per district level. Or how projected road closures could affect transit and therefore turnout rates.

Anyways, I think the entire point of my initial comment was lost:

If you’re excited about the polling, awesome… BUT DON’T GET COMPLACENT AND STILL GO VOTE. Why? Because the people who actually get paid to project outcomes think it’ll be a Hillary re-run, and if you don’t want that, you can NOT get complacent. You can’t let your friends get complacent. Be the reason the oddsmakers lose money in November.