Wednesday assorted links

by on February 24, 2016 at 12:09 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 12:35 pm

“3. Martin Gurri and Scott Adams as early understanders of the Trump phenomenon. ”

I’ve seen people talking about Scott Adams analysis, but this is the first time I’ve actually read it in depth. I’d recommend reading the link that Scott Adams highlighted:

8/13/15 Clown Genius (Most important post of the series) http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

It doesn’t match my own biases, but it explains the Trump phenomena better than anything else I’ve read.

2 celestus February 24, 2016 at 1:13 pm

The best explanation of Trump I’m aware of is Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power.

3 The Original D February 24, 2016 at 2:37 pm

Adams: an explanation of how the three types of persuasion work, how Trump uses them, and discussions of free will to boot.

Heartiste: “he’s got tight game, bruh!”

4 anon February 24, 2016 at 2:45 pm

#3 If you had only paid heed to the change in tone of your comments section these last few years, Tyler, and you could have been on that list too.

5 john February 24, 2016 at 4:32 pm

The MR comment section has been taken over by angry white trash. Trump is being supported by a wave of angry white trash. Anon claims that Tyler could have observed the first and predicted the latter.

I’m skeptical.

6 john February 24, 2016 at 4:57 pm

Also one piece of Russian trash with narcissistic personality disorder, but that’s a special case.

7 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 5:03 pm

“The MR comment section has been taken over by angry white trash. ”

You seem angry. Are you, by any chance, white?

8 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 3:46 pm

Just so.

9 Jeff R. February 24, 2016 at 4:59 pm

+1

10 Bob from Ohio February 24, 2016 at 5:19 pm

” Think about that, an entire storied American political dynasty swept into the dustbin of history by Donald Trump of all people.”

Dream on.

“George Prescott Bush (born April 24, 1976)[2] is an American attorney, U.S. Navy Reserve officer, real estate investor and politician who serves as the Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office.[1] He is the eldest child of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush,…”

“In the November 4 general election, Bush faced Democrat John Cook, a former mayor of El Paso.[36] Bush won 61% of the vote, riding a nationwide Republican wave in the midterms.[37] He is the only Bush to win his first election.[38] He received 49% of the Hispanic vote in his general election race”

Note the last line.

A lock to be US senator or governor from Texas so automatically a possible president.

11 ar7347 February 24, 2016 at 12:43 pm

7. True up until a few weeks ago. But now it is about Trump. That Trump could be this close to being the nominee for president from a major political party will surely give investors pause: Who wants to invest in a country that can be this close to being ruled by an idiosyncratic dictator? The jokes about China are now on us.

Perhaps the Republican moneyed class (are they the same as the establishment?) will intervene in self-interest.

12 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 12:47 pm

Is TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) already becoming a thing? At the point in time you are blaming Donald Trump for oil shock stress in the financial sector you are deep into irrational territory.

13 AndrewL February 24, 2016 at 12:55 pm

That’s not how the US government works. The president cannot become a dictator, cannot dissolve congress and the supreme court, and the country cannot be “ruled” by 1 man.

14 IVV February 24, 2016 at 2:13 pm

Do you think that would stop him from trying?

15 Cliff February 24, 2016 at 2:35 pm

Yes

16 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 2:45 pm

“Do you think that would stop him from trying?”

Well we did manage to fend off Bush and Cheney’s declaration of martial law… but just barely. Thank you DailyKos for waking us from our stupor and preventing a catastrophe.

“Bush declares Martial Law. Country yawns, changes channel
I’ve had a chance to look more carefully at the Executive Order.
It is a blueprint for tyranny.

Not by itself, but in conjunction with everything else Bush has done, all of the other Executive Orders this does finally seal the crypt.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/18/359621/-

17 Alain February 24, 2016 at 7:23 pm

“Thank you DailyKos”

HAHAH words that should never be said together.

18 Ted Craig February 24, 2016 at 1:09 pm

Barry Ritholtz wrote about this last week:

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/article61209162.html

By the way, your “idiosyncratic dictator” line is absurd.

19 Richard Besserer February 24, 2016 at 2:33 pm

No investor in a position to move financial markets seriously believes Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States. At worst, we’re looking at a 2002 Chirac-(Jean-Marie) Le Pen scenario, where everybody with any business leaving the house without his mother or his nurse votes for Hillary Clinton.

(Basically, the US election system has evolved into something functionally similar to the two-round system used in France. Trump may well get into the second round, but that’s it.)

By way of contrast, the British pound has already fallen in light of the non-negligible risk of Brexit. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are arguably bigger threats to global capitalism at this stage than the Donald.

20 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 2:57 pm

“No investor in a position to move financial markets seriously believes Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States.”

Well the current betting market has Trump at 24% and climbing rapidly. (4% gain in the last couple of days). So, if you can legally bet then there is plenty of money to be made betting against Trump.

Or even voting for Hillary Clinton (55%). If as you say Trump has very little chance of winning, then surely the market is mis-pricing the odds of her winning badly?

Personally, I have no idea what’s going to happen. I think the odds are slightly against Trump, but not nearly to the degree people thought last year, or before Christmas, or even a month ago.

21 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 2:57 pm
22 Richard Besserer February 24, 2016 at 4:10 pm

Oh, he’ll get the nomination, just like Le Pen made the second round in 2002. But that will be the easy part.

Check the Iowa Electronic Markets. The chance of the Democrat (read: Clinton) winning has risen along with Trump’s chances of getting the nomination.

Heck, check Election Betting Odds. Right now Trump’s overall chance of victory is 23.8 per cent, conditional on his getting the nomination (69.2 per cent chance). So even if he makes it to the second round (as it were), his chances are no more than one in three, if that.

Rubio has a better chance of winning against Clinton if he somehow manages to stop Trump, maybe 45 per cent (11.8 per cent chance of second-round victory over 26 per cent chance of winning the first round).

23 Art Deco February 24, 2016 at 4:17 pm

The chance of the Democrat (read: Clinton) winning

Her advantage over Sanders has been eroding so consistently it may disappear in the next three weeks. Your gambling aficionados may find themselves losing money on that as well.

24 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 4:42 pm

“Heck, check Election Betting Odds. Right now Trump’s overall chance of victory is 23.8 per cent, conditional on his getting the nomination (69.2 per cent chance). So even if he makes it to the second round (as it were), his chances are no more than one in three, if that. ”

Yeah that was my point. If the serious people are confident that Trump won’t win, then they should be making big bets against the 24% current odds.

25 Art Deco February 24, 2016 at 5:16 pm

Art, you’re forgetting something: always bet on Black.

You mean I’d have made money in 1984 betting on Jesse Jackson?

26 Anoni February 24, 2016 at 5:18 pm

The 24% is a joint probability of winning the nomination and the presidency. Otherwise they don’t make sense, Rubio only 15% of winning the presidency conditional on the nomination?

So the prob of trump winning the presidency given the nomination are: .24/.697= about 35%, that seems about right for just a straight election between a democrat and a republican, where the republican is a somewhat below average candidate.

Rubio odds given he wins the nomination are .123/.256=48% coin toss election between a pretty good republican candidate and a democrat

27 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 5:32 pm

I don’t see how they can be a joint probability of winning, because one is dependent on the other. Trump can’t win the Presidency and Not win the nomination.

So, I think the 24% is his chance of winning the Presidency based upon the current betting. The chance of any Republican winning according to the site is the summation of all of the Republican’s running which is 38%.

28 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 5:36 pm

Hmmm, or maybe I’m wrong. It’s been too long since I’ve done any statistics and the underlying equations are hidden.

29 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 5:42 pm

OK adding up the numbers:

Democrats chances: 61.0%
Republicans chances: 37.9%
Independent (Bloomberg): 0.8%

https://electionbettingodds.com/

30 Art Deco February 24, 2016 at 6:04 pm

And today, Democratic voters are nearly 50% non-white. This was not the case in 1984.

The black share of the Democratic electorate hasn’t changed much since 1984. Per 538, what little data was collected in Nevada indicates that Sanders has been competing passably with Clinton for Hispanic votes.

Votes are votes. Nothing magic about black votes. About 2/3 of HRC’s advantage with voters-in-general has evaporated in the last two months, her advantage with black voters notwithstanding.

31 James February 24, 2016 at 4:44 pm

>> there is plenty of money to be made betting against Trump.

Not really. There’s not very much liquidity and if you want to do it legally you may need to leave the country to do so.

32 msgkings February 24, 2016 at 3:40 pm

How is Brexit a ‘threat to global capitalism’? Cassandra much?

33 Richard Besserer February 24, 2016 at 4:13 pm

I was deliberately exaggerating a bit. I’m well aware global capitalism will go on regardless.

All I meant was that markets are a lot more worried about the long-term consequences of Brexit than of a Trump presidency, which is as it should be—mostly because Brexit is a lot more likely to happen.

34 msgkings February 24, 2016 at 4:16 pm

Fair enough but I’m not sure outside of the UK there are many major long-term consequences of Brexit, and even in the UK it is being made out to be much bigger of a deal than it is.

35 Art Deco February 24, 2016 at 4:19 pm

The ‘long-term consequences’ will be an injury to the career prospects of the sort of krill who might have found jobs in the Brussels apparat.

36 Alain February 24, 2016 at 7:26 pm

> mostly because Brexit is a lot more likely to happen

Also because Trump would likely cause almost no harm compared to the alternatives. Unlike Brexit which would be destabilizing.

Oh, I suppose Trump could cause some liberals to flee the country. Addition by subtraction.

37 Art Deco February 24, 2016 at 4:00 pm

No investor in a position to move financial markets seriously believes Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States.

They may find themselves losing money then. As we speak, the medians of the most recent polls have HRC at 46% and the Donald at 42%. Sanders does a wee bit better, 48% to 42%. If the Donald wraps this business up in mid-March and Hellary and Sanders are left slogging it out until June (a real possibility given the months-long decay in the advantage HRC has registered over Sanders), you may find that 5% point advantage gone (whether or not HRC is indicted or that post-concussion syndrome is made manifest to the public).

38 Art Deco February 24, 2016 at 4:04 pm

Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are arguably bigger threats to global capitalism at this stage than the Donald.

None of them are threats to ‘global capitalism’.

39 Richard Besserer February 24, 2016 at 4:20 pm

I was deliberately exaggerating a bit. I’m well aware global capitalism will go on regardless.

All I meant was that markets are a lot more worried about the long-term consequences of Brexit than of a Trump presidency, which is as it should be—mostly because Brexit is more likely to happen and would be permanent if it did.

Like all presidents, Trump would be term-limited and, during his term or terms, have to work with Congress to get anything done. That would limit the damage he could do even if his opponents’ worst fears about him were confirmed.

Check my comment above (4.10 pm) on Trump’s chances of victory in November.

As for Sanders, his chance of the Dem nomination at this point is one in eight, at most (11.8 per cent). Nobody’s lost money betting against Clinton yet, at least not in this campaign cycle.

40 Art Deco February 24, 2016 at 4:22 pm

I don’t give a damn about the betting markets.

41 msgkings February 24, 2016 at 4:29 pm

And no one else gives a damn about what Art Deco does or doesn’t give a damn about. Art thinks it’ll be Trump vs Sanders. The betting markets think Clinton vs Rubio (with Trump coming on strong). We’ll see, obviously.

42 Cliff February 24, 2016 at 4:30 pm

Well then nobody should give a damn about you, since you apparently know little about prediction

43 Art Deco February 24, 2016 at 4:44 pm

since you apparently know little about prediction

You’re welcome to put as much stock in the transient opinions of petty gamblers as you care to. Mr. Besserer wishes to make categorical statements on that basis. Pretty imprudent, but that never deterred a blowhard.

44 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 4:47 pm

And JWatts thinks that I’ll be spending $10 of mskings on a margarita in the upcoming months.

IMO, it is shaking up to be Trump vs Clinton. The current 1 in 4 odds of a Trump Presidency will be 4 in 10 by the end of June. And that the wild card is what happens at the RNC convention in July.

45 Cliff February 24, 2016 at 5:27 pm

Again, you’re just making it obvious that you are clueless

46 msgkings February 24, 2016 at 5:31 pm

I’d gladly pay $10 to see the Trump vs Clinton show. This cycle is fun!

But I still think it’s gonna be Clinton vs. Rubio (although I’m less certain today). I’ll probably send your $10 to Planned Parenthood.

47 Art Deco February 24, 2016 at 5:33 pm

And JWatts thinks that I’ll be spending $10 of mskings on a margarita in the upcoming months.

You fancy she has the petty decency to not welsh on a wager?

I’m going to puzzle over how the prediction market players fancy that Rubio will win the nomination given that the survey research currently has him as the leading candidate in Utah and nowhere else.

48 Art Deco February 24, 2016 at 5:35 pm

Again, you’re just making it obvious that you are clueless

You’re making categorical statements on the basis of the mutable wisdom of British gamblers and I’m clueless. Thanks for the education.

49 msgkings February 24, 2016 at 5:39 pm

How DARE you impugn my honor so, Senor Deco?! Pistols at dawn!

50 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 6:08 pm

“How DARE you impugn my honor so, Senor Deco?! Pistols at dawn! ”

Hey, now calm down you two. Don’t do anything rash. We wouldn’t want anyone to get hurt.

….

At least before I collect my winnings, anyway. 😉

51 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 6:36 pm

“I’ll probably send your $10 to Planned Parenthood.”

Why in honor of Trump it should be The Wounded Warrior project, of course. And that would be my preference.

52 cheesetrader February 24, 2016 at 5:32 pm

“No investor in a position to move financial markets seriously believes Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States. At worst, we’re looking at a 2002 Chirac-(Jean-Marie) Le Pen scenario, where everybody with any business leaving the house without his mother or his nurse votes for Hillary Clinton.”

Disagree

A) If he’s the candidate and it looks as if he will be, then the possibility of his becoming president must and will be considered by those in finance.

B) Trust me – this already is being considered – as are the ramifications of Hillary pivoting right. Go long biotech, for example

C) Those who pooh pooh his chances in the general are welcome to roll the clock back 6 months and see what the prevailing opinion was vis a vis his getting the nomination. I was one who laughed at his candidacy. I was utterly and completely wrong. I am not making the same mistake with the general.

D) Who the hell knows how he’ll govern and what he’ll do while in office. Maybe he’ll be Jesse Ventura redux and the markets will suck. Maybe it’ll be Morning in America all over again and the markets boom. That we’ll discover.

E) Scoff all you wish. The road to the White House is already littered with the smoking remains of a dozen GOP candidates who laughed…..

53 chuck martel February 24, 2016 at 12:57 pm

7 Any other business, drilling companies, gas stations, automobile manufacturers, trucking companies, airlines, clothing retailers, can go down the tubes but we just can’t let banks be subjected to the whims of the free market. They must be kept solvent regardless of their mistakes, supposedly because of the damage to individual depositors. Moral hazard, the keystone of crony capitalism.

54 Dan in Euroland February 24, 2016 at 2:15 pm

They are the central vertex connecting industries. We may not like it, but finance is a unique sector.

55 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 3:53 pm

If people weren’t so paranoid that the country were on the verge of alternatively corporate fascism or socialist nationalization the Fed could insist on major losses to shareholders at the same time as pumping new capital in the banks, in exchange for shares.

I’m sure that plenty of billionaires, hotshot investors and hedge fund managers have a whole slew of arguments to explain how that would destroy everything though.

56 ladderff February 24, 2016 at 7:36 pm

That would be great if it weren’t so stupid.

57 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 9:00 pm

What, then just give it to wealthy investment bankers for nothing? Do you support some alternative idea?

58 Heorogar February 24, 2016 at 2:24 pm

In the recent (2008 t0 2012) troubles, about 400 FDIC-insured banks and savings banks were declared insolvent by the chartering authorities and the FDIC was named (by statute) receiver. Estimated FDI fund losses totaled between $85 and $90 billion, all of which were borne by the FDIC member banks, not taxpayers. In the period, no insured depositor incurred a loss.

I understand concerns (systemic risk, regulatory capture, political corruption, concentration of risk, etc.) over too big to fail. However, banks don’t fail b/c they become too large. Banks, large and small, fail b/c they engage in unacceptable and unsatisfactory practices, which deteriorate the banks into unsafe and unsound conditions and insolvencies.

59 Brian Donohue February 24, 2016 at 4:13 pm

I’d bet the $85-$90 billion in losses came from mostly smaller banks.

Canada has what? Six banks? All big, no financial crisis.

I’m not a fan of TBTF, but that’s barking up the wrong tree here.

60 Thor February 24, 2016 at 6:05 pm

I ask out of ignorance: Is the small number of (large) banks the reason Canada weathered the economic slump well?

Or, is it because those banks had prudent Canadian types at the top?

I don’t know.

61 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 6:17 pm

Canada has much stricter private housing mortgage requirements than the US, so their exposure to a housing market crash was more limited.

62 Brian Donohue February 24, 2016 at 7:09 pm

I’m not sure I’d go that far. My main point is that the crisis didn’t inevitably stem from banks being too big or TBTF.

I’m pretty sure we as taxpayers came out pretty well in the black when it comes to TARP and big banks. The losses, as I understand it, were concentrated among smaller banks.

63 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 9:09 pm

JWatts – precisely.

Thor’s second guess is also correct. A while back I translated a research paper which demonstrated that the safety margins of the Canadian banks were in excess of those legally required or predicted by several models of risk management, suggesting that an explicitly prudent risk management strategy on the part of each and every bank was also relevant.

64 Heorogar February 24, 2016 at 9:09 pm

BD:

US community banks are an “endangered species.” That is another issue.

Generals always fight the last war. Bank regulators and central bankers should follow suit. See Ecclesiastes: There is nothing new under the Sun.

Taxpayer losses were higher, in 1990 dollars, in the S&L Crisis.

That $85 billion number was based on FDIC loss estimates from press releases at each bank’s closing. I kept a spread sheet, but had to leave it with the firm when I retired. Actual loss numbers are lower. See negative FDIC insurance loss provisions in the past four years. Refer to FDIC Annual Reports and Quarterly Banking Profiles. Search FDIC press releases by year for specific bank failures. …

Some larger closed banks were: IndyMac, Washington Mutual (no cost to the FDIC, bond holders and general creditors lost), WesternBank (PR), Wachovia (merged to Wells at no cost to the Fed).

Reasons Canada didn’t implode were that Canadian housing finance was done differently from the unacceptable and unsatisfactory underwriting/subprime/NINJA loan/no doc/ownership nation/FNM/FRE/HUD/clueless rating agency/broken appraisal profession/carry trade/securitization/CDO/CDS clown show that was massively run in the US between 1995 and 2006. You can do an internet search to find scholarly studies about the differences between US and Canadian housing finance in the period.

65 Orangesoda February 24, 2016 at 1:41 pm

#4 – I work at a large US bank. We have all our new Canadian clients fill out a form by hand which permits us to email them in the future. I find it kind of satisfying that a regulation I saw as another onerous step for banking is affecting something as cheery and well liked as Jeopardy.

66 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 3:02 pm

The reactions to the article are amusing. No one seems to be willing to admit that the direct reason is the Canadian Law. No, it’s all because of some other elaborate reason.

67 joe February 24, 2016 at 1:57 pm

3. I’m fully of the opinion that had the state and federal governments cracked down on illegal immigration the Trump phenomenon would have never happened.

68 The Anti-Gnostic February 24, 2016 at 2:05 pm

Don’t want a Reich, don’t start a Weimar.

69 asdf February 24, 2016 at 2:21 pm

+1, that’s some quality troll Anti

70 j r February 25, 2016 at 12:55 am

I’m fully of the opinion that had the state and federal governments cracked down on illegal drugs the El Chapo phenomenon would have never happened.

71 AlanG February 24, 2016 at 2:25 pm

#3 – All is revealed in Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer” and this was written back in 1950 by a San Francisco longshoreman. Of course Richard Hoffstadter’s “Anti-Intelectualism in American LIfe” does a good job as well. The fact that anyone with a modicum knowledge of history is surprised by the Trump phenomenon is surprising in itself.

72 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 4:03 pm

There’s always astrology. Or prediction markets …

73 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 5:17 pm

Ouija boards? Drug induced divination? Roulette?

74 So Much For Subtlety February 24, 2016 at 6:51 pm

Actually the pathology of the True Believer is more apparent in the Democratic Camp. Voting for Hilary is a Feminist statement. Despite her brutalization of a 12 year old rape victim. Her attacks on her husband’s victims. Despite trying to play the Housewife card when Bill needed her to.

Nothing about her record suggests feminists ought to vote for her. But they will.

It is the same with the Black community. What has she or Obama done for African Americans? They are suffering like they never have before – not since the Civil Rights Act anyway. Bill Clinton reformed welfare which can’t have helped. But Biden adopts a fake “southern” accent and tells them the Republicans will put them back in chains – chains owned, of course, by the nice people who invented the Democratic Party and destroyed by the Republicans – and they will vote for her too. It is weird.

This election is ripping up the rule book on both sides

75 Art Deco February 24, 2016 at 7:05 pm

The black electorate are died in the melt Democrats as a matter of course and seem to have an affinity for Southerners. Also there was a tight labor market and falling crime rates during the Clinton years. Suggest Bilge got the credit for that, something Rudolph Giuliani did not because of foundational biases and the antagonism for Giuliani among the opinion leader element among New York’s minorities (Floyd Flake and Herman Badillo excepted).

76 Art Deco February 24, 2016 at 7:08 pm

Academic / journalistic feminists are a demographically tiny segment and most would never vote Republican under any circumstance. As for black voters, suggest that their voting behavior since 1964 has reflected more an identity affirmation (rather like Ulster Unionists) than political fanaticism.

77 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 4:01 pm

2) And where there is trade there is money, and where there is money you can pay soldiers, and where there are soldiers …

78 Tom Christoffel February 24, 2016 at 4:05 pm

This article is worth a read: Why We Consume: Neural Design and Sustainability It notes: “The brain’s key problem is not a conflict between greed and character. Rather, its problem is how to compute efficiently”.

79 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 5:22 pm

Perhaps black people are less rewarded by this learning behaviour, explaining why they don’t try very hard in school?

80 Ed February 24, 2016 at 5:31 pm

And here I was hoping that Art Deco was “A banned commentor” a few threads back. So who was it? Z?

81 Art Deco February 24, 2016 at 5:40 pm

No, that’s me. He evidently reconsidered. We’re I to bother corresponding with him, I might ask why it would be a priority to clear me off the board and not the four or five vacuous people following me around.

82 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 6:31 pm

Perhaps if you didn’t feel the need to build an insult into your nearly every point of disagreement?

83 Ed February 24, 2016 at 8:06 pm

So it turns that Art Deco, like his buddy E. Harding, has no qualms about being somewhere he isn’t wanted. Funny that.

84 FUBAR007 February 25, 2016 at 10:33 am

Your lack of self-awareness continues to amaze and amuse.

It’s almost charming in a way. Almost.

85 Thiago Ribeiro February 24, 2016 at 6:11 pm

Is there anything to explain? A desperate populace throws itself at the feet of demagoges promising it a better life. Germany had to choose between the Nazis and the Communists, Russia has chosen between Putin, the Communists and the Neofascists, Latin America had the Communists and the Generals, Greece had its Colonels …

86 JWatts February 24, 2016 at 6:16 pm

“…I, too, dismissed the chances of a Trump victory at first,…”

Agreed. I thought he had no chance and thought the FN anchor Megyn Kelly dust up would do him in. When I saw the results, I realized, I had woefully underestimated his intelligence. He handled that in a manner that a) nobody could have predicted and b) got a bump in the polls.

I still feel like he’s probably not going to beat Clinton in the General, but that he’s got the nomination wrapped up. The two wild cards are A) a Clinton issue (health, scandal, etc) B) a negotiated outcome of the Republican Convention.

87 anonymous February 24, 2016 at 10:08 pm

A good September post by a Rula Jebreal that appreciated the potential of Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/09/21/donald-trump-is-americas-silvio-berlusconi/

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: