Trump approval ratings thread 1.6

[pbrower2a]

Four critical states (FL, MI, PA, WI)

Florida:

Trump's job approval in Florida is underwater in the poll. Fifty-one percent of respondents disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job, while 47 percent approve. Inside those numbers, 41 percent 'strongly disapprove' while 31 percent 'strongly approve'.

The poll was conducted by the University of North Florida Public Opinion Research Lab from Feb. 10 to Feb. 18 included 725 registered voters answering the questions of pollsters over the phone. The party breakdown of the respondents were 37 percent Democrat, 35 percent Republican, 28 percent no party/other. The margin of error in the poll was 3.6 percent.

Professor Michael Binder, PhD is the director of UNF's polling lab. In recent years polls from UNF had gained national recognition and respect, but Binder admits his poll, and the entire polling industry need to earn back the public's trust after missing the mark in 2016. He says they learned a lot by looking back on their polling once the actual voting in November was done. He says the lab is applying those lessons to its polling this year.

"In 2016, there was a big relationship between whether you were college educated or not and who you voted for," Binder said. "And there is a big relationship between if you are college educated and whether you take college surveys. The more educated you are, the more inclined you are to take these surveys. So what happened was we had too many educated people in our sample which over-estimated for Clinton in some circumstances."

irstcoastnews.com/amp/article/news/politics/president-trump-trails-bloomberg-biden-in-new-florida-poll/77-95bc0055-d238-48a1-aff8-d02ffdd92ca8?__twitter_impression=true




TRUMP APPROVAL RATING (Quinnipiac MI/PA/WI)

When it comes to how voters view the job President Trump is doing, the president scores his highest job approval rating among voters in Wisconsin, 51 - 46 percent. In both Michigan and Pennsylvania, his job approval is underwater as more voters disapprove than approve of the job he's doing. In Michigan, voters disapprove 54 - 42 percent. In Pennsylvania, voters disapprove 52 - 44 percent.


https://poll.qu.edu/2020-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=3656

Note the big change in Wisconsin. Maybe people believe that Trump really was vindicated.

Trump approval:

40% or less or disapproval over 52%
41-44% or disapproval over  or over 50%
45-49% and negative

tie (white)

45-49% and positive
50-54%
55% or higher

[pbrower2a]

If changes are within the margin of error (4%), then don't make much of them until election time.

I am guessing that the non-removal without sanction or censure of Donald Trump ratifies his innocence in some minds, but probably not enough.

[pbrower2a]

Vermont, Vermont Public Radio.

Trump favorable 31 unfavorable 66

This far out of the zone of contest, Vermont must be a sure loss for Trump.

Trump approval:

40% or less or disapproval over 52%
41-44% or disapproval over  or over 50%
45-49% and negative

tie (white)

45-49% and positive
50-54%
55% or higher

[pbrower2a]

If it is any indication, 37% of the popular vote in the German Presidential election of 1932 went to the Antichrist. Of course the political party system was extremely immature (to put it kindly). The moderate vote went for the dubious war hero Paul von Hindenberg who, regrettably, was going senile. But Hindenberg got the moderate votes and 53% of the popular vote. Ernst Thälmann was the distant third, and he got 10% of the vote as a commie. Thälmann was no moderate, supporting full-blown Stalinist. It is safe to say that Hindenburg won the votes of German democrats of the Center and Social Democratic Parties in view of the alternatives.

45% percent of the American electorate voted for a Presidential nominee who already showed marked tendencies toward authoritarianism in 2016; we are not off the hook.

[pbrower2a]

Trump's approvals in swing states seem more in line with reality:

Michigan: 43/55 (-12)
Pennsylvania: 45/52 (-7)
Wisconsin: 44/52 (-8)

https://elections.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/483/2020/02/ERC-press-release-02.23.2020-final-clean.pdf

With these disapproval numbers, Trump loses all three states. Q had a weird sample that got far too many Republicans and too few Democrats, a sample that suggested that Democrats could never win in Wisconsin (contradicted by the 2018 election which I still consider relevant). 

Trump approval:

40% or less or disapproval over 52%
41-44% or disapproval over  or over 50%
45-49% and negative

tie (white)

45-49% and positive
50-54%
55% or higher

[pbrower2a]

Trump's approvals in swing states seem more in line with reality:

Michigan: 43/55 (-12)
Pennsylvania: 45/52 (-7)
Wisconsin: 44/52 (-8)

https://elections.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/483/2020/02/ERC-press-release-02.23.2020-final-clean.pdf

A majority of Virginians (52%) disapprove of the way President Trump is handling his job, while just over one-third (36%) approve.

https://www.roanoke.edu/about/news/rc_poll_news_politics_feb_2020

With these disapproval numbers, Trump loses all three states. Q had a weird sample that got far too many Republicans and too few Democrats, a sample that suggested that Democrats could never win in Wisconsin (contradicted by the 2018 election which I still consider relevant).  

A hint: Obama never won any state in 2012 in which his disapproval number went above 51%. Trump is not as slick a politician as Obama. It would take a flukish collapse by the Democratic opponent or massive cheating by Trump or the GOP (which could include intimidation... you know how that goes -- an employer adds notices "vote straight Republican if you want to keep getting paychecks")  

Trump approval:

40% or less or disapproval over 52%
41-44% or disapproval over  or over 50%
45-49% and negative

tie (white)

45-49% and positive
50-54%
55% or higher

[pbrower2a]

If I were to pick a scenario in which President Trump wins 49 states while losing the District of Columbia and one state with ten to fifteen electoral votes as did Nixon in 1972 or Reagan in 1984, then the one state that he would lose would be either Maryland or Massachusetts.

Thirty-one percent of Marylanders approve of the job Trump is doing as President of the United States and 62 percent disapprove. Thirteen percent of residents approve of the job Congress is doing and 79 percent disapprove.

https://www.goucher.edu/hughes-center/documents/Goucher-College-Poll-Feb-2020-Part-2.pdf

No need to change the map.

[pbrower2a]

We won't have perfect information until the electoral results come in -- but these numbers suggest a fire chief facing a scenario with a gang of serial arsonists in a heat wave with simultaneous drought.

This is how a landslide defeat for an incumbent President starts. President Trump needs miracles to rescue this Presidency. One telling factor is that the two oldest age groups include the only one in which Trump's net approval is above water (51-47, among people 65+) and one in which his approval and disapproval are tied (49-49, among people 50-64). So what reservoir of new voters awaits the GOP in November? Among those 35-49 the margin favors a generic Democrat 56-49... which is bad-enough news for the President.

If you look at the last landslide against a first-term President whose election represented a change in the Party of the President, you go back to Carter losing to Reagan. The youngest voters sharply veered Republican in 1980. This time voters under 34 give Trump only 28% approval -- but 68% disapproval. When half the electorate favors the President by 2-3% and another half disfavors the President by 27%, then  the President seems to be facing a double-digit margin of loss. 

To be sure there is no hostage scenario to grind down support for the President, and the economy has not yet tanked. If either happened, then Trump would be in even worse shape than was Carter, who at least had some wisdom, integrity, caution, empathy, and moderation -- all of which Trump completely lacks. Carter may have been in a better position eight months before the election of 1980 than is Trump in 2020.

[pbrower2a]

This is the (apparently) objective Lichtman test that has usually been right in determining which party wins the majority of the popular vote in a Presidential election. To be sure our system of electing the President has the States, and not the People, electing the President, so a winner of less than the plurality can get elected President, as in 2000 and 2016. It is still theoretically possible for Donald Trump to win reelection with a Democratic majority of the vote as Democrats run up huge majorities for President in states with 9 to 55 electoral votes (CO, MD, MA, WA, VA,  NJ, IL, NY, and CA) while barely losing some critical states as Hillary Clinton did in 2016.  But -- if the Democrats get an even swing of 1% of the vote from 2016 to 2020, then Trump loses Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and his re-election bid. To be sure, even swings do not happen.  


.................

(revision: I consider the statement of former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld that he is running for the nomination for President through the Republican Party unambiguous evidence that Trump faces a serious primary challenge from someone with bona fide credentials as an elected Republican with a significant history of public service. I am also calling the President's anti-immigration stance an effective change in American politics even if I find it abominable. Lichtman does not ask whether the change that a President effects  (such as a large tariff) is to the good or bad of the country.    

Quote
1.    Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2.    Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3.   Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4.    Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5.    Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6.    Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7.    Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8.    Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9.    Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10.    Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11.    Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12.   Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13.   Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

1. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE. We now have a definitive answer on November 6, 2018. The GOP not only lost seats in the House of Representatives, but also its majority. This is usually a negative for practically any administration,
2. NOW NEGATIVE There could be, but that is yet well enough into the future that we can't say anything. This is not on the scale of the weird Lyn LaRouche running in a partisan or the presence of Harold Stassen on Republican primary ballots long after his political life was over. (For all I know, Stassen could still be on Republican primary ballots even if his literal life is over).  
 
I'm not saying that Bill Weld will succeed in knocking out Trump, but his campaign will weaken Trump. This has become an unambiguous negative, and it could get worse for the President. The last two incumbent Presidents who faced a serious primary challenge (Ford and Carter) lost their re-election bids. In view of his experience, Bill Weld is a serious candidate. Effective Presidents do not face primary challenges. To be sure, I cannot yet say that Weld is as effective as Reagan in 1976 or Ted Kennedy in 1980 -- but he demonstrates a weakness of this President. Some GOP constituencies dislike Trump. The primary challenges to LBJ in 1968 created chaos. He did get nearly 10% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, which I see as a sign that much dissent exists within the GOP about Trump; some of this could end up going Third Party (Reform? Constitution? Libertarian?) or even to the Democrat. Sure, it is New Hampshire, where Bill Weld is remembered as the Governor of a neighboring state ("Taxachusetts"), so I don't expect to see anything like 9.1% of the caucus or primary vote in many states going to Weld.    

But note well: that a President who got elected with 45.92% of the popular vote (which is not much higher as a percentage than the 45.65% that Mike Dukakis got in 1988)... President Trump is going to need every possible R-leaning vote that he can get, especially when voters under 35 disapprove of him 68-28 in a recent poll.  
 
Rivals for the nomination  are rarely effective in bringing all their early breakaway supporters back to the fold.
  
3. A Republican will be President in 2020 and the incumbent will be running even if something happens to President Trump. Pence would run for re-election.

4. I think that there will be, but that is too far into the future for any discussion yet.

5. Way too early to tell, but on March 1, 2020 it is shaky due to a huge 'correction' in the stock market. Ask again in August or September 2020.

6. The Obama economy had a growth rate unusually high, as it was a recovery from a nasty recession. This will be impossible to meet.

7. NOW POSITIVE -- if for all the wrong reasons He hasn't yet. The tax bill is it. I expect more efforts at deregulation of industry, union-cracking, and privatization even if those prove unpopular. In view of the anti-immigrant policy that our President has, he now gets a positive. Lichtman does not judge whether the effects are good or bad, as in the past with a huge tariff bill. Consequences could lead to the strengthening of negatives, as in domestic unrest.

8. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE.  Sure, the President did not directly inspire one of his supporters to send bombs to Democratic politicians and celebrities, but he consider himself lucky that none of them blew up a target. Donald Trump may be no antisemite (Nazi-style antisemitism is racist), but the creep who mowed down eleven Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue did so out of a concern that the  specific Jews had been  supporting immigration of non-white people. The frequent polite demonstrations from the Women's March on have not been unrest, but they can certainly call attention to his awfulness and aid in organizing an electoral opposition.
  
9. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE.  This is the most systematically and severely corrupt Administration in American history. The legal problems keep piling up. Americans have shown little tolerance for corruption among Governors, Senators, and Representatives, so why should they act any differently toward President Trump?

10. Likely but it has yet to happen. NOW NEGATIVE. I do not trust the deal with North Korea, and this President is insulting so many of America's traditional allies that something will go bad. The tariff is a disaster waiting to happen. I'm calling it now for reasons shown above on America's loss of credibility among its traditional allies. This is a matter of timing, and I could have done it earlier.  I do so now, not that anything has changed abruptly. Remember how badly he bungled the response to the deaths of four Special Forces soldiers in Niger? Maybe not, but I saw that as a portent of trouble.

11. The nuke deal with North Korea? There is no enforcement in place. The President would need China and ideally also Russia as an enforcer.

12. Trump already seems much less charismatic now than in 2016. He still has charisma with his cult. That will not be enough.

13. We have no idea who the Democratic nominee will be.

[pbrower2a]

It's back to where things were while the impeachment process was going on. Trump is not vindicated.

[pbrower2a]

I’m betting his approval will go right back down again after this horrible week for the markets, and his lackluster response to coronavirus.

Let's hope so. You would think that a notorious germaphobe would care more.

Disgusting that you're wishing people would die to make "approval ratings" go down. Remember too, he was elected (remember the gay people and women and people with hijabs crying at Javits?) with a 38% approval.

Don't act like a moron. Approval doesn't mean as much as you think.

He didn’t say he wishes people would die to make Trump’s approval go down also (the bolded part) good job showing off that bigoted side again as you like to do

Am I lying?



Am I lying?



Was it all a dream?



You guys waste all your votes in expensive, homeless-ridden large cities and lose the electoral college to a sea of red. Not my fault. Then you become gleeful that people should get sick?

We are not gleeful that people are getting sick. This virus has been mishandled badly in China -- where many of us thought that such was impossible.

It does not help that we have a buffoon as President, someone who consistently deprecates science and expertise because such simply feels right to him.

The whole justification for the Trump Presidency has been the high stock prices that indicate either a healthy economy or one in a bubble about to burst.

I see a bubble about to burst. Investors cannot easily get the short-term financing, as shown in an inverted yield curve. The coronavirus? That is simply a pretext for a panic.

Workers have been terribly underpaid for several years; the gains have largely gone to the Master Class while wages remain stagnant and costs of living rise faster than income for most people. Savings have been ravaged, and savings are the ultimate source of short-term loans for businesses.

I've seen it before: the shakiest entities die first. Valuations of things other than securities, such as real estate, also tumble. Consumer spending plummets.

Do you really think that Donald Trump is the sort of politician to promote hope as an economy goes into a seemingly-unstoppable spiral? He is enough of a blowhard, but he is blowing the wrong message already.       

[pbrower2a]

Trump in bad shape in Texas.

Texas (CNN)
All Adults: 43/49 (-6)
RV: 47/50 (-3)

California (CNN)
All Adults: 33/60 (-27)
RV: 35/61 (-26)

The California number looks about right. The Texas number? I would guess that the last Republican President to have that sort of approval in Texas was Gerald Ford... who was the last Republican Presidential nominee to lose Texas.

Texas polling is... weird. Using the RV (and note well that a significant number of Texas voters of 2020 have yet to register to vote, and those are likely a rather young, D-leaning set) I show something that I have shown in Texas before:

 

Trump approval:

40% or less or disapproval over 52%
41-44% or disapproval over  or over 50%
45-49% and negative

tie (white)

45-49% and positive
50-54%
55% or higher

[pbrower2a]

How states have voted from 2000 on:

all 5 for the Republican
4 R, 1 D
3 R, 2D 
3 D, 2 R
4 D, 1 R
all five for the Democrat

[pbrower2a]

Flips based on 2000-2016 by margin:

(**favorite son as nominee in 2000. No asterisk for 2016 because both nominees were from New York
* state 'flipped" from 2000 to 2016)

swing 10% or more 80% saturation
swing 5-9.9% 60% saturation
swing 2-4.9% 40% saturation
swing under 2% 20% saturation

Utah -- a third-party nominee finished in second place above the Democrat in 2016, so I show this in green with no other significance.   

Ignore districts of Maine and New Hampshire, as I have inadequate data on those.

color shows the direction of the swing of the margin -- red to the Democrat, blue to the Republican

.........

You are welcome to draw whatever conclusions you wish. Except that tiny swings from 2000 to 2016 were enough to swing Wisconsin and New Hampshire, swings that flipped the other states (CO, IA, MI, PA, VA) were much larger than necessary. It's obvious that except for Mississippi (which seems to vote close to an ethnic divide), the good old days for Democrats in the Mountain and Deep South (and this includes Missouri) from the New Deal to the 1990's are much in the past. Otherwise, Democrats seem to be doing better in the western US but decidedly worse (except for Illinois) in the Rust Belt.  You are also welcome to draw conclusions of applicability to 2020. 

I may not be accurate, and I would not pay much attention to small swings unless you want to make your changes.

[pbrower2a]

Fox News, Feb. 23-26, 1000 RV (1-month change)

Approve 47 (+2)
Disapprove 52 (-2)

This is Trump's best showing in this poll since the early months of his Presidency.

Economy Approval went down, though. First effect of coronavirus? I expect his approval to go down as well.

Economy Approval:
54 (-2)
42 (+4)

The economy has been Trump's only strength for people not in the "basket of deplorables". He has ridden an eleven-year bull market. Of course I expect him to fault liberals when that bull market comes to an end. Last week was not a definitive end.

[pbrower2a]

Fox News, Feb. 23-26, 1000 RV (1-month change)

Approve 47 (+2)
Disapprove 52 (-2)

This is Trump's best showing in this poll since the early months of his Presidency.

Economy Approval went down, though. First effect of coronavirus? I expect his approval to go down as well.

Economy Approval:
54 (-2)
42 (+4)

The Trump economy has always been a piper (sic) tiger. He inherited an objectively good economy and has done nothing to impact it.

Obama was leery of taking credit for the economy. Republicans had prevented him from making the economic order more just and equitable, so he had to acquiesce with trickle-down economics without a corrupt speculative boom.

Most of the eleven-year bull market has been under Obama, and Trump has had the audacity to claim credit for it. When the bubble in stock-market valuations comes to an end with a sudden collapse, then Trump will exculpate himself. Voters will not exculpate him.   

[pbrower2a]

Lichtman test, March 1, 2020:

1.    Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2.    Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3.   Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4.    Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5.    Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6.    Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7.    Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8.    Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9.    Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10.    Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11.    Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12.   Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13.   Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Keys favoring the President:

3. The President is running for re-election, and should anything happen to him with Mike Pence becoming President, Pence looks like a sure thing to defend his new office.
11. He did get a deal with the Taliban.

Keys against him:

2. My interpretation is that a non-joke opponent getting a significant part of the vote in any primary election indicates that the President has a big problem. Such opponents in primaries show division within the Party. Weld may not stop Trump from being re-nominated, but he shows that significant dissent exists within the Republican Party. Trump cannot afford to lose much of the vote share from 2016. Although New Hampshire is not a perfect analogue for Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, it is somewhat similar to those three states in political composition.

The damage might not hurt him in the quest for a repeated nomination, but it is a warning sign of the potential for a Third-Party or independent nominee siphoning votes away from him that ordinarily go to a conservative Republican.

The real damage as a key could occur as this one loses its relevance -- and turns #4 against the President.  So one key turns for him and another turns against him... that does him no good.

6. Although the stock markets are doing well (or were doing well!) the economic growth rate after ten years of a boom leading out of a serious recession can never be as strong as that in the recovery phase from the previous recession. This is a tough standard, and I would like to downplay this.

7. Aside from a tax cut -- he made big promises and could not deliver on anything else even when he had majorities in both Houses. The House can stop practically any legislative effort that he proposes. This will stick.

8. Although polite dissent has been extensive, that is not enough to count as social unrest even if it eases organization by the other side. Racist violence is dangerous unrest if the President handles it badly. Trump bungled a violent, racist incident in Charlottesville, Virginia by saying that there are "good people on both sides" on Nazi-style racism. No, there are not "good people on both sides" on arson, child molestation, armed robberies, or drug trafficking -- or Nazi-style racism. Trump could have addressed some other ugly incidents with firm condemnation... and didn't. He still uses bigotry as a political tool to consolidate support among his base, and the base is never enough for winning the Biggest Prize of All.

9. Scandals mark this Presidency in frequency and severity without precedent in American history.  Americans have little tolerance for scandals among governors, Senators, or Representatives... so what says that the President is exempt from this reality? There is just no excuse.

12. This President is a wreck.  

Shaky:

5. One week of horrid closings in the financial markets does not indicate a market crash or an economic downturn. Economic meltdowns often start that way, and a week like the last one in February suggests big trouble for the President.  

To be announced:

4.  There isn't one yet. One or more conservative alternatives with widespread support who get(s) 4% or more of the popular vote can cut the President's percentage of the vote into the low forties, where he cannot win.

13. We have yet to see who the challenger will be. Some of the Democrats running in 2020 have it; some don't. Wait and see.  

Subject to interpretation:

10.    Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

Does the "perfect phone call to the President of Ukraine" count as failure, since it got him impeached?  Does the missile attack on a US base after the assassination of an Iranian general in a paramilitary activity count if the President trivializes the effects of concussions? Does his bungled response to the coronavirus count as a failure in foreign policy?

A President competent at foreign policy would treat the coronavirus as a matter of foreign policy because it has international effects, just as he would with concerns of law enforcement that cross international borders (let us say drug trafficking). 

[pbrower2a]

Fox News, Feb. 23-26, 1000 RV (1-month change)

Approve 47 (+2)
Disapprove 52 (-2)

This is Trump's best showing in this poll since the early months of his Presidency.

Economy Approval went down, though. First effect of coronavirus? I expect his approval to go down as well.

Economy Approval:
54 (-2)
42 (+4)

The Trump economy has always been a piper tiger. He inherited an objectively good economy and has done nothing to impact it.

Cutting taxes and raising deficit spending adding a Keynesian boost. It's a tragedy to boost the deficit when the economy's at full blast since we need to be able to borrow when we really need it, but it does have an effect.

That's how Populist Boomers roll! We spent like there is NO TOMORROW! We are going to spent all we want and we'll make Millennials pay for it, hahaha! 




https://law.marquette.edu/poll/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/MLSP58Toplines.pdf
FEB 19-23, 2020
A/B
Marquette Law School
1,000   RV

WI
48/48   (Economy 56/41)


https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1575&context=survey_center_polls
FEB 19-25, 2020
B
University of New Hampshire
576   LV

NH
45/53  (Economy 57/38)



https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6788733/FULL-RESULTS-Morning-Call-Muhlenberg-College.pdf
FEB 12-20, 2020
A+
Muhlenberg College
424   RV

PA
42/50 (Economy 58/34)


People love Trump Economy! 

The economy hasn't tanked yet.

But did you see what happened to the stock market indices last week? The DJIA topped off at 29K, and it is unlikely to be there again for a long time. A loss of one tenth of the valuation of securities is a usual sign of a recession. Five straight losses isn't definitive, but if I had some spare cash I wouldn't be buying into a stock market that has just shown a near-vertical slope.  90-day certificate of deposit which is good for getting about a 1% rate of return per year, which is better than not having the return of my money.  Only fools try to time the market. Why buy in at 25K when you might do so at 18K?

Price-earnings ratios are unusually high, and the inverted yield curve implies that a bunch of firms on life support will have the credit cut off... or have the plug pulled on their life support. Over-leveraged companies may find that there are no more cash infusions...  In essence, many accounts receivable will no longer be receivable.  A credit crunch implies that retailers will have to get more fussy about selling big-ticket stuff on credit, so consumer purchases plummet.

Or, to spoof the song "It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas"


It's beginning to look like a depression/
Just like 'twenty-nine!
Big ticket things do not sell/
Nobody's doing well/
But Donald Trump thinks everything's just fine!

It's beginning to look like a depression/
Every where you go!
When people can't pay the rent/
'Cause they're down to their last cent
all the bankers know!
All the bankers know!

 

[pbrower2a]

The economy hasn't tanked yet.

But did you see what happened to the stock market indices last week? The DJIA topped off at 29K, and it is unlikely to be there again for a long time. A loss of one tenth of the valuation of securities is a usual sign of a recession. Five straight losses isn't definitive, but if I had some spare cash I wouldn't be buying into a stock market that has just shown a near-vertical slope.  90-day certificate of deposit which is good for getting about a 1% rate of return per year, which is better than not having the return of my money.  Only fools try to time the market. Why buy in at 25K when you might do so at 18K?

Price-earnings ratios are unusually high, and the inverted yield curve implies that a bunch of firms on life support will have the credit cut off... or have the plug pulled on their life support. Over-leveraged companies may find that there are no more cash infusions...  In essence, many accounts receivable will no longer be receivable.  A credit crunch implies that retailers will have to get more fussy about selling big-ticket stuff on credit, so consumer purchases plummet.

Or, to spoof the song "It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas"


It's beginning to look like a depression/
Just like 'twenty-nine!
Big ticket things do not sell/
Nobody's doing well/
But Donald Trump thinks everything's just fine!

It's beginning to look like a depression/
Every where you go!
When people can't pay the rent/
'Cause they're down to their last cent
all the bankers know!
All the bankers know!

  

As you said, "Only fools try to time the market."

So I'm definitely looking for possible bargains to buy as I'd already pulled some cash out of the market for other reasons before this. (A combination of harvesting tax losses at the end of last year and selling stuff that had grown larger than my preferred stake in any one stock.  Diversification is key to good investing.) Of course, I'll take into account short term effects, but so far there's no indication that this'll have any long term impact.  Obviously, I'm down YTD, but only 8%, which under the circumstances, is doing quite well.

I'm in no rush to buy, but I'm not going to let fears the market hasn't hit bottom deter me if I have reason to believe I'll make money long term. (Or even short term in dividend income as I mainly invest in value stocks, not growth stocks, so value stocks with solid dividends that have taken a hit are worth getting.)  I'd write some more, but I have some research to do before deciding on what to buy.

I am not in the securities business, and if I were I would be untrustworthy. As would be necessary for me to keep getting paid I would be telling people at every stage of a bear market that "there has never been a better time to buy" until the market levels off at a reasonable level, at which time I would advise people that "there are plenty of eager buyers now, so you might as well sell now".

What you must beware of is the so-called sucker's rally, a miniature bull market within a more protracted bear market.

 

Whatever you do, do not invest in a sucker's rally. To be sure, things are not quite as they were in 1929, as the regulation of the financial industry is far stronger. In the event that Donald Trump has a recession destroying what little credibility he has as a leader, we will see him vanish from all relevance on January 21, 2021 with a President who sees himself with the responsibility to do radical reforms to make economic life better for all Americans -- but especially people who have been doing badly.

After the Crash of 1929 came an enticing semblance of recovery:

  

By April 1930 the markets had recovered to where they had been at the start of 1929, which would have made people quite happy had things stayed there. OK, so the craziness of the heady boom in stock prices was no more  -- but 1929 started off well enough, after all. By October 1930 the prices were as low as they had been at the bottom of the original crash. To put it in the most optimistic terms possible, there was still a huge down-side in securities valuation.

If you cannot take an 8% loss in valuation, you should not be in the stock market; you should be buying the ideal investment for unimaginative people -- life insurance if you want something around when retirement comes with the expectation of selling it off for an annuity when the time comes. If you want to save money for your kids' college education, then buy long-term certificates of deposit.

Return and risk have a strong correlation. Is it wise to take your money, pay the taxes on the gain, and hold onto what you have until things become safer? Maybe. Paying capital gains taxes on what you have may be wiser than facing a 56% reduction in valuation of your portfolio. That is the level of loss that investors experienced between 2007 and 2009, and that is far from impossible now.

In any event, you should never invest unless you recognize that (1) the stock market can go awry with a severe market meltdown, and (2) that when you sell out, you will pay taxes -- steep taxes -- on such gains as you have.

Buy and hold is ordinarily one of the easiest and safest strategies -- until the market collapses.
      

[pbrower2a]

rbower, I'm not buying the market. When I buy, I'll buy individual stocks.  (The only funds I own are a small amount in a smallcap ETF as its a sector of the market that I have neither the time nor the expertise to pick individual stocks but I want some exposure for diversification reasons, and my SIMPLE IRA which offers only funds as options and which I will get out of as soon as I leave my current . and can roll it over to my personal IRA.)

It is hard to go wrong investing for quality. Still, even the best-managed company with excellent innovation, finances, and marketing will ride the market to some extent.




Big companies have life-cycles from start-up to death. Some go rapidly from birth to death due to misconduct of the management, and some that are very old (let us say DuPont) are at most 'mature' after 200 or more years. DuPont is the oldest big business in America, and it seems to be thriving. Companies in the initial stages are so risky that they have the usual perils of small businesses; a giant firm could crush them if it so desired. Besides, you would never know about them. If you have just graduated from college you might want to get involved in one of them. There are some very rich people who started out as janitors in Hewlett-Packard when it was selling stock to employees as an incentive. Some of those janitors never had the stuff to be anything else -- but they bought an excellent stock when it was new and nearly unknown.

Some companies have limited market potential. They may be profitable, but at some point they are not going to get more customers through any means other than territorial expansion. Example: a strip club. Such businesses are not stock companies.

"Prime" is where one wants to be. Innovation is strong, and the finances are getting solid. Marketing is effective. What else could you want? Having bought in earlier? Think of how much better my life could be if I knew what the winning number were on the Super-Duper Megabucks Lotto and had bet on the number.

OK:

 Prime is the optimal position on the lifecycle, where the organization finally achieves a balance between control and flexibility. Prime is actually not a single point on the lifecycle curve. Instead, it is best represented by a segment of the curve that includes both growing and aging conditions. This is because flexibility and self-control are incompatible and there is no stable equilibrium. Sometimes the Prime organization is more flexible than controllable, and sometimes it's not flexible enough.

These are the characteristics of an organization in Prime:

The organization is guided by the vision of its reason for being. There is a clear purpose and people know what they will do, and will not do, "they walk their talk".

The company operates in a focused, energized and predictable manner.
Stretch goals are set, aligned and consistently achieved.

There is an enterprise-wide focus on customers and earning their long-term satisfaction. There is a high degree of customer loyalty. At the same time, the organization knows when and how to say "no" to the market. It is disciplined enough to protect itself.

Priorities are clear. The organization knows what to do, and what not to do. It enjoys a certain composure and peace of mind when making tough decisions.

The entrepreneurial spirit is fully institutionalized. Evidence of organizational fertility abound. This creativity repeatedly produces controlled, profitable innovation.

Organizational structures work well. Opposing forces are balanced. There is alignment between vision, strategy, structure, information, resource allocation and rewards. A company in Prime is continuously realigning these subsystems.

The infrastructure provides reliable support.

The governance process is institutionalized. People know and understand where and how decisions are made.

Decision-making is done is an environment of healthy, constructive conflict. Points of view are considered, but there are no hard feelings if one's recommendations are not heeded. Differences of opinion rarely deteriorate into personality clashes or turf wars.

There is intra- and inter-organizational integration and cohesion with clients, suppliers, investors, and the community. This internal cohesion enables the Prime organization to devote much of its energy externally.

People enjoy working at the company. Few willingly leave and there is a backlog of people applying for positions at all levels.

They embrace change. Prime companies work hard to adapt to changes in markets and technology so that they can gain share from weaker competitors.

They enjoy consistent, above average growth in both sales and profits.

What do you have to lose? Companies in this phase are in the best position in which to thrive after incompetent and decadent competitors get squeezed out in market meltdowns -- but even they can feel the heat.

[pbrower2a]

So where do you not want to be?  At the fall is the peak of profitability, but the aging is setting in. A company is losing its innovative qualities. Its marketing is getting stale. A company in this state can look good to outsiders. 

The leaders of The Fall companies are starting to feel content and somewhat complacent. This attitude has been developing for some time. The company is strong, but it is starting to lose flexibility. It is at the top of its lifecycle curve, but it has expended nearly all of the "developmental momentum" it amassed during its growing stages. The rocket is slowing down and starting to change direction and head down the lifecycle curve. The organization suffers from an attitude that says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The company is losing the spirit of creativity, innovation, and the desire to change that brought it to Prime. It has sown the seeds of mediocrity. As the desire to change lessens, the organization mellows. There is less contention than in previous stages. More and more, people are adhering to precedence and relying on what has worked in the past. The company's dominant position in the marketplace has given it a sense of security. From time to time, creativity and a push for change surface, but such eruptions become less and less frequent. Order and predictability prevail. To avoid endangering success, people opt for conservative approaches.

The centers of power are gradually shifting. Corporate staff positions such as finance, accounting, HR, legal and risk management are gaining power at the expense of marketing, sales and production. Intuition and judgment play decreasing roles as facts, figures, and detailed analyses begin to rule the day. Sales continue to rise, but the revenues generated by new products that did not exist say, three years ago, are declining. Often these "new" products are not really breakthroughs. They are merely product enrichments more related to new packaging or bundling than innovation.

Slowly and subtly, the entrepreneurial spirit in the The Fall organization dwindles. The momentum of aging increases and the organization slides down into Aristocracy, the next phase of its lifecycle. This transition is subtle. Unlike the transitions in growing companies that are dramatic and obvious, the slide into deeper aging is more of a continuous process of gradual decay.

https://adizes.com/the-fall/

This might be a blue-chip stock  It is not on the verge of collapse; far from that, it is the sort of company that can retrench in a hard time and thrive after an economic meltdown in a stronger position because troubled competitors reach the final stage of DEATH as creditors pull the plug (no more credit infusions) or the company liquidates voluntarily or otherwise. But -- the edge is gone. Conformity becomes the norm. 

[pbrower2a]

As imagination dies, conformist behavior becomes the norm. A company is still profitable in aristocracy but it begins to resemble a cult.

 As organizations enter Aristocracy they characteristically:

Are cash rich and have very strong financial statements.
Have reduced expectations for growth.
Demonstrate little interest in conquering new markets, technologies, and frontiers.
Focus on past achievements rather than future visions.
Are suspicious of change.
Reward those who do what they are told to do and punish those who do not.
Are interested in reducing their risks.
Invest much more on control systems, benefits, and facilities than they do on R & D.
Form dominates function in the organizational climate. More emphasis is placed on how things are done, than what was done.
Value uniformity, consistency and formality in dress, decorum, and behavior.
Employ individuals who are concerned about the company's vitality, but are willing to abide by a "don't make waves" operating motto.
Engender only negligible innovation with internal efforts.
Acquire other products or companies for new products, markets, and entrepreneurship to feed into their distribution channels and operating systems.
May be takeover targets themselves.

https://adizes.com/aristocracy/

As an investor you might see your company as a take-over target which will redeem your investment. After the takeover the acquisitor then starts stripping assets, and at that point you don't want to be an employee there anymore. This is the equivalent of programming "golden oldies" on a radio station; it takes little imagination. No expense seems to be spared to make the corporate boardroom 'plush'. Employee turnover is low, in part because they would generally be welcome nowhere else. Public utilities often get stuck there; public relations and government relations become more vital to profits than does innovation. What real innovation can be done with hydro-electric power?

This is at most a short-term investment unless one wants fixed dividends with little concern for their growth. Growth is at an end.

[pbrower2a]

WhaThings start to go bad, and recrimination begins. Market share starts to shrink, and the image of the company begins to fade. I could see this in Montgomery-Ward around 1980. There were attempts to split the stores into specialty areas as boutiques. The firm often got the sobriquet "Monkey Ward". The problem was that even if the inner boutiques were sort-of-OK, Ward's generally low-end customers couldn't adjust, and the stores didn't attract better-heeled customers from competitors. Mobil bought it as a tax shelter while energy prices soared and, after getting the tax write-offs it wanted, spun it off. There were no potential buyers. Montgomery-Ward customers had largely gone to K-Mart or Wal*Mart.

Companies in such a phase of existence are infamously awful as places to work, even if one recognizes the bad wages or working conditions as a characteristic of the industry. As you can imagine, people find that they can get jobs in such places, but you can obviously recognize that people there are either short-timers looking for work elsewhere  or awful employees. People with talent are not going to stick around to ever give their employer a chance to use that talent to revive the company.

So  what really goes on?

      The Witch Hunt

Everyone is busy trying to find out who caused the disaster. With blades drawn, it's backstabbing time in the boardroom. Like primitive tribes afflicted by extended drought or famine, there is a rush to appease the gods. The organization needs a sacrifice. Whom does it sacrifice? The fairest maiden, the finest warrior, or the cream of the crop? Typically, the management of a company in Recrimination sacrifices its most valuable and scarcest treasure.........the last vestiges of innovation and creativity. The company fires the EVP of Marketing, explaining, "We're in the wrong market with the wrong products and our advertising does not work." The heads of Strategic Planning, Business Development and Engineering are the next to find themselves on the street. "Our strategy does not work. Our acquisitions are not working. Our products and technology are obsolete." The people who get fired don't feel they are responsible for the company's situation. The Marketing VP often said that the company ought to change its direction. The strategist has an ulcer worrying about the lack of direction. Privately, these individuals complained, urged, begged, and threatened, but their efforts were like pushing wet spaghetti up a hill. Their exodus merely exacerbates the problem because these creative people are the individuals the organization needs most for survival.

https://adizes.com/recrimination/

[pbrower2a]

Virginia hasn't voted for a populist nominee, Left or Right, for President since FDR.

[quote author=GeorgiaModerate link=topic=361619.msg7214771#msg7214771 date=1583260596

This is Trump's lowest rating in this poll since November.

IBD/TIPP, Feb. 20-29, 908 adults (1-month change)

Approve 41 (-3)
Disapprove 54 (+3)

This is Trump's lowest rating in this poll since November.

He's not winning with those numbers.

Gallup, Feb. 17-28, 1020 adults (2-week change)

Approve 47 (-2)
Disapprove 51 (+3)

It looks as if the lift from the whitewash victory on impeachment is no more.

If anyone has noticed, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 9.2% over three months; President Trump, who has claimed to own the boon of high securities prices while President when they go up will  own the slide when the prices go down. Obama was leery of claiming credit for the market while he was President. Obama was wise to avoid taking credit for it; he let others see such a boon without having to brag about it. Obama is more wise than humble; Trump is neither.

A run-up in securities is usually the last act of a bull market about to go bear.

[pbrower2a]

Still, it looks as if President Trump is not in the deep trouble (underwater and up to his neck in alligators) in disapproval as he was shown to be a few months ago.

I can now imagine Trump winning Georgia but losing Texas.