Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

Bobby Jindal has dropped out of the presidential race:https://www.yahoo.com/...s-dropping-2016-race-231830201.htmlI wonder who might be next.

Seems Ben Carson's campaign staff are a tad ignorant of the true geography of our own country:https://www.washingtonpost.com/...-states-in-the-wrong-placeExcerpt:

quote:

---

As you can see, in Carson's map the states of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine are moved northeast by about 150 miles or so. Vermont and New York now have hundreds of miles of new beachfront property. Massachusetts shares a border with Canada. Maine straddles what is now the Gulf of Saint Lawrence.

---

http://news.yahoo.com/...it-vindictive-almost-182004950.html

quote:

---

Mike Huckabee Calls 'Eye of the Tiger' Lawsuit 'Vindictive and Almost Unbelievable'

---

I gotta ask: are people like Huckabee REALLY that clueless? Honestly, that is not a rhetorical question. Is he just a gifted performance artist that leverages false outrage as a cheap means to garner votes from supporters of Kim Davis (and apparently, her husband 'Cletus')? Or is he REALLY just totally batshit?The irony of these situations just staggers me.

To be frank, I think the QE mechanism and the ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) of the Fed have essentially just created inflation in assets, but not yielded any tangible benefits from a fundamental standpoint.Some may disagree, but my assertion has always been that the problems we are experiencing in the past 15 years are almost solely the fault of the Federal Reserve. In the Greenspan era, he started this notion of stepping in aggressively at the slightest hint of recession. (Despite his so-called Ayn Rand views on 'Free Markets') As a result, his loose money policy set the stage for the dot com bubble of the 90s. When that burst in 2000, the subsequent recession should have been more severe. However, Greenspan did what was unprecedented at the time and dropped the prime lending rate to 1%. And he kept it there for far too long. This basically created ANOTHER disconnect and culminated in the housing bubble and the financial crisis.The solution to the most recent Great Recession was to once again throw easy money at the problem. Now, we dropped interest rates to zero and started the QE mechanism. The result? Same as before. We now have another disconnect between fundamentals and asset prices.What does this mean for the future? Hard to say and no one knows the end result. But my suspicion is that interest rates will stay low because we will likely be on the verge of another downturn and subsequent recession.The frightening prospect in this circumstance is that the Fed basically has no ammunition left. They have little to no room to maneuver on the prime lending rate. The situation in China, Europe and the current oil glut are all out of their hands. What that may mean is that the USA goes into a multi-decade 'malaise' similar to what occurred in Japan. Some are now basically saying the Fed is just a passenger at this stage and Sir Isaac Newton is in the drivers seat.And I can't say I would be surprised at that result. Japan had a massive asset bubble in stocks and housing. To unwind those sorts of disconnects, most central banks try to spread the pain over a longer time frame. The downside is that if the disconnect was sufficiently large, that 'unwinding' can take a VERY long time.Regarding the size of the disconnect resulting from Greenspan, when he took his Fed Chair position, the DOW JONES was hovering right around 2000. It peaked in 2000/2001 at around 11000. That is a 14% y-o-y return which is unheard of in stocks over their average. For the most part, stocks will return 6-8% y-o-y returns in a nominal market over a wide time frame. So he almost double that.One final note on the Greenspan era is that he set the precedent for the morale hazard we saw in 2008 when the investment and commercial banks were essentially 'bailed out'. For those that may not be aware, in 1998, we had a massive problem manifest with the Asian credit crisis. At the time, a particular outfit named 'Long Term Capital Management' had a tremendous amount of exposure to Asian debt. They basically were bankrupt and their downfall would have taken several investment banks with them. Greenspan stepped in and provided Fed 'assistance' to shore up the downside. While LTCM went under, the contagion did not spread to other investment banks. Oh, and as a little anecdote, anyone care to guess which investment bank was the most over-exposed to LTCM? *drum roll* Lehman Brothers. :-)In the end, perhaps Yellen will surprise me. But I am not optimistic. Unless we get a Fed Chairman like Volcker, my suspicion is that we are in for some very uncertain and choppy waters for years to come.

I used an online calculator. But I believe I did it right. I can do it in sequence over 13 years as follows:Start amount: 2000 (utilizing 14% annual return)
2000 x 1.14 = 2280
2280 x 1.14 = 2599
2599 x 1.14 = 2963
2963 x 1.14 = 3377
3377 x 1.14 = 3850
3850 x 1.14 = 4389
4389 x 1.14 = 5004
5004 x 1.14 = 5704
5704 x 1.14 = 6503
6503 x 1.14 = 7414
7414 x 1.14 = 8452
8452 x 1.14 = 9635
9635 x 1.14 = 10984Let me know if you spot something amiss with my math. Being so dependent on Excel nowadays, it wouldn't surprise me if my basic math skills have atrophied.

So far, the following have dropped out after the Iowa caucus on the Republican side:Rand Paul
Mike Huckabee
Rick SantorumThat still leaves:Donald Trump
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Ben Carson
Jeb Bush
Carly Fiorina
John Kasich
Chris ChristieInterestingly, Rand Paul got more votes than Bush yet he still dropped out. I wonder how long before the 'establishment' Republicans start shifting their money towards Rubio, as he looks to be the best choice out of the remaining pack that has a chance and isn't completely bonkers.Chris Christie was also second to last. I am guessing he is on thin ice as well. Which isn't a good thing considering how heavy he is.

Definitely a wider spread on the Democratic side than Hillary would have liked. But I can't say I am surprised.I think the larger surprise is The Donald's showing. My guess is the establishment Republicans were hoping that the polls were off the mark regarding his lead. Guess not. Also just read that Chris Christie is heading back to New Jersey to 'decide next steps'. My guess is he will be dropping out shortly.

Carly Fiorina Ends Bid For Republican Presidential Nomination : The Two-Way : NPRGuess she will now have to go back to her previous job: ruining tech companies and cashing in golden parachutes.

While I am leaning more towards Hillary for practical reasons, I have to take exception to labeling Bernie as a 'wacko'. Bernie is a seasoned politician with decades of service. What has he done to warrant such a negative label?You can argue that he might be too far left with some of his socialist views. But that does not even come close to the lunacy that permeates from The Donald or Ted Cruz. Trump is a walking joke, providing nothing of substance and basically being the loudest, most obnoxious person in the room. Cruz's claim to fame is shutting down the government, taking extreme right views that make Bernie look like a centrist and actually being strongly disliked in his own party. Those two are true 'wackos' in my opinion.

Chris Christie Endorses Donald Trump and Calls Marco Rubio 'Desperate' - First Draft. Political News, Now. - The New York TimesIs that some New York/New Jersey mutual affection thing or is that just Christie's final FU to the country?

So King Ghidorah and Godzilla are joining forces?! We are SO screwed!

Well, looks like they have made if official:http://www.sunjournal.com/...s-be-democratic-nominee/1937869Clinton now has the threshold of delegates.I noticed that they called this late last night, the evening before the primaries on Tuesday. Since California is so close, I am wondering if that was intentional as a means to dissuade Sander's supporters from voting in their local primary if they feel the results are now moot.Nonetheless, we appear to now have a center-right Democrat that placates to Goldman Sax versus a Crazy Orange Jack-o-lantern that wants to build thousands of miles of border fence and ban all Muslims from the USA.Gotta love politics.

When last I viewed the aggregate polls on Real Clear Politics, it was closer in California. But nonetheless, still a stretch for Bernie. And he didn't have a chance in New Jersey. Agreed. That and I would prefer someone who is at least a seasoned politician versus a reality TV show character. Plus I need my president to be focused on policy matters and governing, versus getting into Twitter wars with every troll on the planet.

Actually, now that Hillary is the presumptive nominee, the latest polls show her pulling well ahead of Trump:realclearpolitics.comThe latest poll from Bloomberg actually has her ahead by double digits.Granted, it is still early. But I think the narrowness of the gap between Trump and Clinton that existed earlier was due to Trump becoming the presumptive nominee while Bernie and Hillary were still in a contested race.Also, The Donald has not had a good few weeks. He has repeatedly put his foot in his mouth. Especially with the issue around Trump university and the judge who is of Latino descent.

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver Predicts Hillary Clinton Wins Election Against Donald Trump - ABC NewsIf anyone remembers Nate Silver, he correctly predicted the outcome of the last two elections. Including the 2012 one where the GOP, using their own suspect polling mechanisms, were completely in shock at the outcome of the results. I still enjoy recalling Karl Rove's fat little face, all red, as he was watching the results come in and he refused to acknowledge that Ohio had gone to Obama.