Mark Davis

This is his weak issue. He doesn't need to dig in hard here, he can get in a setup in a hurry.

Yep he fumbled that

The Lee Strasberg school must be on the payroll

She's memorized some time killing answers. But she can't answer on the tariffs because there isn't on to explain why they are still there if she's against them.

In 2020 the opposite happened, GA was more blue. It stands to reason if he wins GA, he likely wins NC as well. I'm not sure what would have moved the statistical relationship between those two states towards NC being more blue, especially given Trump's issues with Kemp in particular in GA. In 2020 GA was Biden +0.2% and NC Trump 1.4%, a 1.6% spread. It's not going to be 7%.

I'd argue if Trump wins GA then he wins NC. The bottom line is those states aren't going to be as far apart as all that. There's no way they are 7 points different.

Odds have moved slightly at Bovada and BetOnline. Trump has improved from about an 11:10 favorite to now being a roughly 6:5 favorite. Obviously a lot depends on what happens tomorrow night. My guess this is more based on the individual swing state polls and people just crunching the numbers based on the way those polls are settling down. Better to be the favorite, but 6:5 isn't exactly a stranglehold. It will be interesting to see these move tomorrow night and where they settle. Probably will be off the board at most books during the debate time.

Yes I don't think they need Lake to be the majority. They just keep putting her up and she keeps finding a way to lose.

You’re right on this. I saw polling today and he appears to be done. The House is going to be a mess and small majority either way. I don’t see much getting through there either. I think the House is the most likely blue result of the 3 elections. The Senate almost certainly red.

We might could find some common ground on tariffs, but that is a separate discussion. I'm glad we can both agree the wealth tax idea sucks though. But honestly both of us realize that she personally doesn't have the fiscal knowledge and/or have invested the time to understand the "why" of that, it's a pandering thing to the left to tax the rich. That's not an insult really, moreso she's never been a business person or involved in finance, and she likely has invested her time in other areas rather than to study this beyond what some staffers present to her. Someone on her staff likely suggested it, it's a nod to the Warren wing, one she voted with frequently in the Senate. It's who she is, and that goes back to my point of her shifting views. I firmly believe that she does believe in this. This one is consistent with who she has been.

NPR doesn't seem to see wealth taxes as being a good idea. The principle is the same, regardless of scope: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs But as a secondary observation, there aren't enough people qualified to evaluate this from a taxation standpoint. Although I don't practice now, that's my background. Valuations would be enormously subjective.

It's a wealth tax. The AMT started out as not being a whole lot of people, now it's a tax that almost everyone can agree isn't equitable, yet the government can't live without the revenue so there's zero chance of repeal.

So yay or nay on the unrealized cap gains? If she's pro that, I'd argue that isn't mild at all.

Before Biden pulled out, he was a frequent guest on political shows saying the Democrats were fools to consider pulling Biden because they would be sacrificing one of his keys. I wonder if he still feels Biden is the superior candidate to Harris?

You know the two sides argue over whether Walz or Vance are weird. This guy has lapped both of them early on in the race.

Most of those deal with emergencies such as selling power generators and water in hurricane zones. If you want this at the federal level, ok. That's a totally fair issue. It just simply isn't a driver of inflation today and is a red herring. She's throwing that shiny object out there to distract on what the causes of inflation are, and price gouging isn't it. There's a huge difference in raising price due to a supply shortfall in a high demand time of emergency and raising price because of drastic increases in the cost of your inventory.

Definitely. It's all about inventory turns. To survive at those meager of margins you must turn inventory many many times a year. Sadly, there is a way to implement price controls, they'd just be devastating. The taxing unrealized gains though, even as a CPA I don't know quite how you'd set that up. I do know you could keep CPA's employed for eternity at much higher salaries if you do it though because it's going to be nasty and manipulated. Taxing unrealized cap gains is essentially equivalent to a wealth tax, which wealth is hard to calculate and pin down but if you make it harder and go after unrealized cap gains, it's such a briar patch I don't know how you ever agree on numbers. Europe has tried wealth taxes in a few cases, they didn't work so well.

I for one am shocked state actors would try to influence the election. Given Trump's stance on trying to end the Ukranian conflict I'm not shocked Russia would favor him today. I also wouldn't be shocked if the Iranian actors are wanting Harris to win. There are multiple cross currents out there. It's foolish to believe all bad actors are pulling in one direction because they have differing interests. They don't give two craps about either party, they just want what's best for them. And what's best for those type states in a winner are often different.

She did mention grocery stores. Latest 2023 industry data I found on them suggest a 1.6% after tax margin, 2.2% pretax. So her premise is wrong, but she wants to deflect from what has caused inflation, give her credit for throwing the shiny object in the other direction and get the story elsewhere. She's got less than 60 days now to try and run the clock out. Thing is, I'm not 100% she wins if the election were today. Two weeks ago I would have said she would have won if election day were then. She could win if it were today, but GA and PA are on a razor thin edge right now and AZ seems to have moved back into Trump's column.

He came across to me as finding commonalities among winners, not really cause and effect. Some of it is pretty intuitive but I don't think he's found some system. He struck me as the guy who wanted you to call in the 1-900 number to get NFL winners because of some trend they found that nobody else has.

That Lichtman guy is the biggest blowhard I’ve ever seen. He’s been on quite a few shows, Cuomo is one. He’s very defensive anytime anyone challenges him.

Latest from Emerson https://x.com/frankluntz/status/1831743113838391400?s=46&t=QA56vEicq_0uiHVUVTt_Hg

Honestly I don’t know much of what she wants. It’s being leaked she’s taking opposing positions to stances she’s on the record about. She never does interviews to explain and her website is devoid of policy. Basically we are speculating on what’s behind curtain number 3. I know you don’t feel that way but I’ll disagree with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders all day, but they at least are very forthright in what they are for and against. I thought I knew with Harris, but things I’ve heard her say, I’m now hearing she’s changed her mind on. But again, it’s what you choose to believe bc she isn’t clarifying it. As for capital gains, I’m speaking more to the unrealized cap gains tax idea. Do you know where she currently stands? I’ve heard she supports it but again, I really don’t know. It’s pretty hard to tell.

I'm not sure if that is my favorite or the wanting to tax unrealized capital gains.

I don't even try anymore.