Goldman Sachs: Don't expect Brexit-type surprise in presidential race (barf!)

With their candidate lagging in most of the major polls, Donald Trump's supporters are hoping the election holds a surprise akin to June's Brexit vote.

Goldman Sachs, though, believes the chances of a Nov. 8 surprise in the U.S. are remote. The two races differ in several key ways, Goldman economist Alec Phillips said, diminishing the possibility of a repeat where polling incorrectly suggested that Britons would vote to stay in the European Union. "We think the situation is different for two reasons. First, and most importantly, while both situations represented an opportunity for voters to endorse a change in the status quo, voters in the U.K. were asked to decide on an idea whereas in the U.S. they are being asked to decide on a person," Phillips said in a note to clients Wednesday. "Second, the polls are simply not as close in the current presidential contest as they were ahead of the U.K. referendum."

On the first point, Phillips obviously is correct. The second, though, isn't as clear.

True, some polls have showed a yawning gap between the two candidates. The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll put the Hillary Clinton lead at 11 points, the last ABC tracking poll had the Democrat ahead by 8 and CNN has the advantage at 6 points. However, the Real Clear Politics average of all major polls gives Clinton just a 4.4-point edge, and the Los Angeles Times' tracker even sees Trump with a 1-point lead.

By comparison, the final London Telegraph poll heading into the June 23 vote had the "remain" vote with a comfortable 4-point lead. Betting odds in the U.K. had given "remain" an 88 percent chance of prevailing, against the "leave" victory of 4 points.

Hillary Clinton
Confused As Well As Corrupt!
In the Presidential Debate, the other night (the 19th of October), Mrs. Clinton explained her approach to job creation. The recital sounded rehearsed & sloganized; but it demonstrated something very different than what she obviously intended. It would be far better described as a path to economic stagnation, than a path to economic progress!
That a woman who has been politically active, her entire adult life, among a people with the most successful history of economic achievement over their first century and a quarter, of any people on earth, under a Constitutional Government designed to protect that people from a bureaucratic pestilence, which has been the bane of most nations; that such a woman has so missed the essential point of the American achievement, is staggering in its implications.
Mrs. Clinton claimed that a Clinton Government would rebuild the "Middle Class." Was she totally unaware that the American Middle Class clearly built itself? That the American Middle Class resulted from naturally energized individuals, aspiring to achieve the good life, who risked everything to first clear a wilderness, work hard, generation to generation, to save & accumulate the attributes of the good life; with the result that by 1913--the year that a graduated income tax first became Constitutional, this Settler built Federation of newly settled States, had already surpassed every one of the great powers of Europe in industrial strength.
To "rebuild" the "Middle Class," Mrs. Clinton vowed to make the most successful Americans--those who had achieved the most--pay increased taxes; she called it "paying their 'fair' share." But it was clearly to be a tax on success--a tax to fund a raft of new programs (a cancer or pestilence of an expanded bureaucracy). She was obviously indifferent to the fact that the biggest impediment to any poor person with ambition, actually launching a small business to improve his status, is an almost incomprehensible explosion in bureaucratic regulations, most of which premised on the same flawed understanding of how people actually advance, which Mrs. Clinton displayed, on the 19th.
Americans used to learn by experience. What were the experience based lessons of what transpired from the drafting of our written Constitution in 1787, until the passage of the income tax amendment in 1913? Are they instructive or not, for what actually works for human advancement?
The Constitution prior to 1913, absolutely interdicted a tax driven war on the accumulation of individual wealth. Article I, Section 9, which Mrs. Clinton should have remembered from Law School, provided that no direct tax on individual Americans could be applied in any way but pro-capita. (That is Warren Buffet would pay the same tax--not the same percentage tax--but the same tax as Joe the Plumber. The Founders had no desire to limit individual success. They sought only to encourage it.
Under there experience based philosophy, there were almost certainly not even 1% of the bureaucratic regulations, with which Americans seeking to improve their lot, must face today. In place of today's pursuit of grievances, real or imagined, there was universal admiration for the high achievers! And the growth rate of a people freed to achieve, was the economic phenomenon of human history.
We do not pretend to know whether it was in her indoctrination by Marxist Pied Pipers in her late teens, or pure confusion in whatever she is struggling with today. But Mrs. Clinton is utterly clueless on how a dynamic economy works; as she is utterly unaware of the dynamic, interactive factors, that drive or stagnate any human aspiration or achievement. What is absolutely clear, even if one ignores her lack of a moral compass in her political dealings; the woman is absolutely unqualified to be President of the United States.
This is one more reason why we must win this election for Donald Trump.
William Flax

[This may be reproduced, if in full context, with or without attribution.]

It is an idea, and the polls are designed to create opinion, not measure it.

Your are correct Sir.

Sadly, there are way too many so-called Americans that buy into the propaganda.

Between the ignorant, the willfully ignorant and the political opportunists we may have reached America's tipping point.

I don't know.

But, when it's unacceptable to publicly oppose any number of progressive/liberal/democrat policies or concepts, you must consider the possibility that they are winning on a number of fronts.

Those policies and concepts are being institutionalized throughout virtually every aspect of our lives and are supported by the media's relentless efforts to guilt people into compliance.

This has been going on for a long time.

Goldman Sacks and their ilk would be thrilled to turn our once great Republic into a Fascist State since they would make themselves kings of ungodly wealth and power.

There is no better way for them and the Progressive/Liberal/democrat/Fascist to do this than to accuse and label their opposition of being what they are.

Fascist.

And the clueless casual voting zombies will tell us that Bush was Hitler, Trump is Hitler, Republicans are racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic, greedy, anti-science, mouth breathing, uncaring, gun tooting, Bible banging, redneck, slave owning, White privileged warmongers.

Just to name a few.

All of this is being promoted by the media and is finding its way into the policies of both our Government agencies, large institutions and public/private companies.

All that said, what would you do as the head of Goldman, JPM, BOA, Apple, Google etc..?

Would it be in your best interest to "get in bed" with the Government or fight them?

It's going to take much more than a Trump Presidency to unwind this mess.

God help us all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.