I think most would agree Trump getting re-elected is nearly impossible. So far the Dems have stated things like
-wealth tax
-70% marginal tax rates
-breaking up of big tech
-medicare for all
-universal income
-financial transaction tax
-modern monetary theory
-extreme environmental regs
-rollback of tax reform

Just one of these policies would send a clear message that the US is no longer open for business. See Canada - where I reside - for the impact on the stock market with these types of policies. At end of Dems term in 2024 I could easily see S&P halving.

In anticipation of the above, what is the right time to ditch US stocks?

Why would most agree Trump getting re-elected is nearly impossible?

Most of my webtime is here or Reddit and Trump supporters are nowhere to be seen.

1. Barring a huge landslide in 2020 the Republicans will likely remain in control of the senate.
2. Joe Biden, who is currently leading the polls, is basically a Republican.
3. So is Nancy Pelosi.

Two plus two and reddit are both lefty websites in regards to politics, so it's no wonder that your view is skewed. It's quite erroneous to base a political prediction based on your internet activities. Conservatives browse conservative websites and liberals browse liberal websites. Conservatives tend to associate with and be friends with other conservatives and vice versa. This creates tunnel vision and a tendency to believe that your viewpoints are much more prevalent among the general populace than in reality.

We have 100+ years of switching between democrats and republicans with no discernible impact on general markets. All those bullet points you mentioned are just lefty talking points to satiate the plebs, the corporate oligarchy is alive and well and not going anywhere anytime soon.

Pinnacle has Trump at ~45% to win the 2020 US election. Pinnacle is very good at analyzing the future.

It's a bunch of young vocal losers who are pushing these (with some oldies cynically wanting the young vocal loser vote/attention/PR). The olds are still in charge of the Democrats and while they are it's business as usual.

Trump has already cut a bunch of toxic Democrat regulations, which has spurred business and the economy. But those accumulate slowly and they're not going to undo his cuts. Hard to see any great economic effect from a Democrat win.

The markets might be slightly peeved that their business president is gone (they were pretty elated to see him) but the economy and the corporate earnings and rates will determine what the market does, mostly.

I wouldn't bet against Trump getting second term. The same people saying wont get re-elected are the same that said he will never become president in first place.

I don't know... he won a very close election vs a very bad candidate the first time... and since then things haven't exactly gone great. He's very popular with his base, but he's very very unpopular with everyone else.

I think he struggled to win a low turnout election and I think he's drawing close to dead in a high turnout election. His best shot is definitely the Dems going too far to the left and letting him have another long shot.

I think this subforum is at least as over the top delusional right wing as the politics forum is over the top delusional left wing. TS, you in particular have completely drank the right wing Koolaid, and it's probably impacting the accuracy of your perceptions negatively.

I think it will depend on the stock market.
If the SPX is still >2600 going into 2020 elections then Trump is a shoo-in. It wouldn't even matter who the DNC fields or how hard the GOP tries to backstab Trump and force him out; they would get curb-stomped.
If not, then he will lose even to a full-on socialist candidate as both the DNC and GOP will collude to force him out and will have the cover to do so.

FWIW, my current thesis is that we crash this year, which will cause Trump to lose 2020 and cause America to adopt full-on socialism in response. Which is why he is panicking so hard in trying to keep the stock market up.

Though I suppose the embrace of a fully socialist candidate will depend on who the DNC tries to force as "the chosen one" around April/May. I had thought it was going to be Bloomberg given the millions spent in trial balloons by the DNC, but apparently not. Currently, almost everyone running for the DNC candidate is being used as a setup to split the vote towards the DNC selected chosen one in the same manner that the GOP managed to push Romney through the candidates.

TS aside, and coming from someone who does frequent MAGA intensive spaces as well as places just as left as 2p2 politics since politics handicapping is one of my most +EV fields, I see no real MAGA in this forum so I'm not sure why you think this.

All these things will help redistribute prosperity to more people and when more people are richer they can spend money which will go back to companies in the form of profits. The Green New Deal type stuff seems to be +EV for the overall economy.

But even if none of that stuff gets done, Democrats are historically better for the stock market.

You are completely delusional.

And Democrats have never been full blown socialists like they will be in 2020.

The green new deal isn't going to get done obv. There will be significant amounts of anti carbon regulation and subsidies though. We'll almost certainly see a revenue neutral carbon tax (where all proceeds are redistributed to the population) that gets pretty high for instance.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news to anyone who thinks that not doing this stuff is better for the economy than doing it... Climate change is real. Which means that ignoring it would cost an absurd amount of money in the long run.

I've noticed that a majority of the people telling me that climate change isn't real are old enough that they think they can die before having to pay for it. As someone who will probably be around for another 60+ years I can't think of anything nice to say about that.

EDIT: I'm also really tired of people claiming that the GOP are the party of business. They are the party of powerful donors who want to keep rigging capitalism to favor the current winners even more. From my perspective the problem isn't capitalism vs socialism it's big vs small. The best thing about capitalism is competition, and our regulations were written by large corporations to minimize competition so that they can maximize profit margins. To me that's neither socialism or capitalism but some kind of twisted corporatism. Both parties are absolutely complicit in this... But the GOP is unique in that they have gone 100% service to their donors and completely jettisoned the concept of 'public service'.

Ah, an economic perpetual motion machine.
Just to take one example, the trillions in broken windows by rapidly and drastically changing the energy mix to unstable green power is "good for the economy"?

Somebody should tell China that they're harming their economy by building two coal-fired power stations a week!

The government really needs to go and break all the windows in the US (hypersonic boom?) so that the production of new windows can create lots of new jobs and stimulate the economy!

The green new deal is +EV for economy...

Do pigs fly too now?

So serious question. TS what would you propose we do about climate change? Is the current economy more important to you than the future economy?

I'm sincerely curious how you see all this.

This is an absurdly idiotic take, on par with believing that prayer can stop malaria. People like you have actually greatly increased CO2 emissions with your low resolution thinking.

I'm probably around your age and I feel nothing but contempt for the idiocy of the low-resolution comment "climate change is real". This is a meaningless statement on par with "God is real". Ok, bro. Good for you.

The question is: Assuming it is "real" (let's not have that debate - I'll give you that for the purposes of the argument), how can total global emissions be lowered? That's the question, not whether it's "real" or you're flashing your dopey virtues and affirmation of tribal chants "climate change is real!" like a religious fundamentalist. The Obama adminstration were the greatest environmental vandals in history because they signed a worthless accord that, rather than put pressure on the greatest polluter and least efficient producer, gave them carte blanche to pollute at will, creating cheaper energy than Western countries and hastening the flow of manufacturing to a much lower energy efficiency country.

But unbridled morons like yourself don't care - he "did something" and "believed" even though what he did was the greatest act of environmental vandalism in history. It was people like and your low resolution idiocy that allowed such a farce to be applauded rather than scorned.

So **** you with your holier-than-thou talk about grandkids. You're the problem, and an idiot besides, not the solution.

Nothing, since we can do nothing. That's a highly unsatisfying answer to people who don't understand the world, but that's the reality. There are no realistic solutions to the problem of emissions. That answer will be very different in 20 years, long before any even slightly meaningful impacts of climate change happen.

A nuclear power buildout is a strong partial solution, better than all the others. But there's no will to do that and strong opposition from the very people who parrot climate change.
Yes. But not in the way you think. Climate change is merely the modern version of peak oil/disaster theory. It's something that:

- Will not be meaningfully bad for humans or the environment for 40+ years, regardless of the hyperventilating losers in the media and self interested promoters. To give you an example of the former, tropical cyclone/hurricane formation has decreased in the last 40 years, in both frequency and severity. Yet every hurricane is "climate change" writ large. Everyone who mentions climate change when a hurricane comes is a science denying loser.

- Is >99% to be able to be mitigated long before it comes to being serious enough to need to do that

- Is one of the least important environmental problems (poor people destroying forests is the most)

- Is likely to be made obsolete as a concern by improving technology in the coming decades if we continue having a robust, cheap energy economy

- Is at odds with human development and lifting out of poverty.
If it was dire I'd be in favor of extreme action. It's not dire. And most people in power know that which is why they do gestures like the Paris Accord to placate the worthless, but nothing real.

Bjorn Lomborg has done a lot of science and analysis around this issue. His findings are rigorous and correct. What we should do about climate change given that we accept the IPCC projections is settled science in my view - and the answer is nothing.

I suspected that you had no idea what you were talking about. Thank you for the confirmation. I'm done here.

I know precisely what I'm talking about. You just can't accept truth when it makes you look like an absolute fool. It's a fascinating human flaw and I love exploring it. Thanks for being true to type. Your take on this and your moralizing about it was absolutely ridiculous. Own it.

TS,

What do you think about mass solar panel build outs in deserts around the world.

Would that be enough to power our entire energy consumption needs?

Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty found Lomborg's 2003 book to be very misleading, but it was OK since he isn't actually an expert.

Starts on page 26
https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2004/...c-dishones.pdf

You've chosen to pick your own facts. You're quoting obscure 'experts' with no credibility whatsoever because they agree with your world view. I don't argue with people who I can't come to factual agreement with. You've decided that climate change isn't going to do any major harm to the world in direct contradiction with reality. I can't help you, or anyone else with that problem.

Also he looks like he was in a failed 90's band.