Corbyn's Massive Defeat is Big Wakeup Call for Democrats

Mish

It's time for US democrats to reflect on the message UK voters gave Labour yesterday.

Proposed Wakeup Phone Call

"Hello Elizabeth. This is Jeremy, Jeremy Corbyn. About your radical plan to save America. I've been doing some reflecting. Guess what?"

Jeremy Corbyn Went Down in Flames

Jeremy Corbyn went down in flames yesterday in the biggest Labour defeat in 35 years. [Correction: since 1935].

The above proposed phone call will never happen because Corbyn Refuses to Admit He is the Reason for Labour's Massive Defeat.

Corbyn will stand down as party leader in January. But he wants time to reflect on what happened.

Corbyn Already Sounds Like Hillary

Corbyn blamed Brexit. He blamed the media. He blamed disgusting politicians.

On the latter, he is of course correct. He just forgot to look in the mirror while making that statement.

He just forgot one thing. He forgot to blame Russia.

He will have plenty of time to reflect on things, then blame Russia.

Media vs Polls

The polls mostly got this correct. The media kept saying "too close to call".

Flashback November 18: Fear of Corbyn Outweighs Fear of Brexit

My Comment: "This election is no longer primarily about Brexit, it's primarily about Corbyn."

Perhaps this is easier to see from afar. Perhaps it is simple willingness to dive into the polls. Either way, Corbyn's unpopularity was of epic proportion, poll after poll after poll.

Why is it shocking news that people, when they finally got into the voting booth, voted against someone they could not stand?

Time for Reflection

Corbyn says "it's time to reflect."

Please, let's do.

Since it's time to reflect, please reflect on the above question in reference to Hillary and why she lost.

Let's also reflect on Corbyn's Radical Manifesto.

Labour's Radical Plan Highlights

  1. Increase government spending by a massive £82.9bn a year, about 4pc of GDP, all paid for by rising taxes
  2. A £400bn “national transformation fund”, which would “add to the government’s debt” but isn’t in the headline figures.
  3. Nationalisation of rail, water, energy, bus, mail, and broadband companies
  4. Seizure of 10 percent of the shares in every big UK company and handing the shares to workers
  5. Raise the corporate tax rate to 26% from 19%
  6. An £11bn windfall tax on the oil and gas sector
  7. Free broadband internet for everyone
  8. Free shelter for the homeless
  9. Super-rich tax rate
  10. Tax on second homes
  11. Raise £8bn via a Financial Transactions Tax
  12. Higher inheritance tax
  13. Force landlords to sell homes to tenants at a "fair" price as determined by Labour

Democrats Take Note

I wrote about Corbyn's radical manifesto on November 23 with this message: Jeremy Corbyn Goes for Broke With Last Desperate Act, US Democrats Take Note.

My Lead-In Comment "Labour's manifesto is a final act of desperation. US democrats, especially Elizabeth Warren, should take note."

Free Everything!

In the US Democratic debates, the candidates are still trying to outdo each other with free this, free that.

Warren is at the top of the list. Like Corbyn, she wants to nationalize everything possible and break up the rest. She wants free healthcare, free education, free shelter.

She also wants a wealth tax.

In the UK, voters did not believe Corbyn's plan was remotely possible.

Ironically, Corbyn decided his 2017 plan was not radical enough. So he made it even more radical.

Labour Hijacked

The Washington Examiner explains How Jeremy Corbyn Hijacked the Labour Party

Corbyn was the underdog in the Labour party’s 2015 leadership race. He was a long-serving radical backbench MP known for his anti-Western foreign policy stances, competing against multiple well-qualified moderate Labour candidates. He maximized a change to voting rules and signed up thousands of far-left grassroots activists who would turn the formerly centrist Labour party of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown into an effective vehicle for his socialist ideals. He received a landslide of 59.5 percent of first preference votes. Building on his success, he created a far-left political movement named Momentum, which has been described as the ‘party within the party.’

News For You

Corbyn and Warren are two peas in the same radical-left plan.

Warren, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and AOC now attempt the same thing in the US.

If they succeed, they may well deliver the same result.

I wrote about this on December 5.

How to Re-Elect Trump in One Easy Lesson

Please consider How to Re-Elect Trump in One Easy Lesson

"Radical progressives are up in arms. Ironically, if Trump wins again, they will be the reason."

Forget the Base

Why appeal to the radicals? Where are they going? I ask the same questions of Republicans and Democrats alike.

If given a choice between Biden or Bloomberg vs Trump, Progressives will vote for Biden or Bloomberg.

Q: Why?

A: Under no circumstances will they vote for Trump.

So how is Bloomberg a liability?

What About Independents?

Independents might easily vote for Biden or Bloomberg. In contrast, they might not easily vote for Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren.

In fact, Harris and Warren, darlings of the Progressives, might be the only people that Trump could beat.

These kinds of honest assessments get me in hot water.

Unqualified

Such analysis led me to labeling Kamala Harris as unqualified. My reason, which I explained, was that I did not believe she could win the election.

I immediately came under attack by the radical progressives on Twitter for days after I posted such a Tweet.

I am in another TweetStorm right now over why Corbyn lost.

Hint: Don't try to speak rationally to radical leftists. They are hopelessly delusional.

Divided Political Parties

In the UK, the left splintered over Brexit. On top of it, Labour advanced a Marxist left wing program of “free stuff” just as Sanders and Warren do here.

Labour's plan was so radical that not even its base believed the manifesto was possible.

In both the US and UK voting systems, it is suicidal not to unite. Yet, it is damn hard to unite around radical views or behind radical persons.

As much as voters dislike Trump, they disliked Hillary more.

Warren is probably not as disliked personally as Hillary, but her plan is as radical Marxist as Corbyn's.

Warren may be the only candidate that Trump can beat, just as Hillary was the only person Trump could beat four years ago. Yet Warren is the darling of all the progressives hell bent on hijacking the party platform to the most radical agenda possible.

The winning path is to pick a candidate the moderates and independents will back. The core and the radicals are going nowhere.

A Phone Call That Won't Happen

"Hello Elizabeth. This is Jeremy, Jeremy Corbyn. About your radical plan to save America. I've been doing some reflecting. Guess what?"

That phone call will never happen. Nor will Hillary nor Corbyn ever look in the mirror and blame themselves.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (114)
No. 1-40
Latkes
Latkes

The Labour manifesto was released a few weeks ago, while their preferences have been in free fall for a long time.

This isn't about economy. Brexit isn't about economy. All that is just convenient reframing of the real issues.

The left has made the bad, ugly, stupid, degenerate and foreign into virtues. People are revolting against that. People are also revolting against demographic replacement. They will be betrayed by Tories, but that's a separate issue.

Latkes
Latkes

This wasn't about economy, nor the Labour's manifesto, that has been released just a few weeks before the election.

The real reasons were in my previous comment, which was deleted. Too bad.

Edit: Thank you for allowing the automoderated comments!

WCVarones
WCVarones

"He forgot to blame Russia."

But American leftists have that covered!

Latkes
Latkes

@WCVarones , I believe Twitter is verboten here.

Edit: 45 minutes later, the auto-mod decision has been reversed. Thanks, Mish (or whoever mods this)!

Carl_R
Carl_R

Shhhh.

Onni4me
Onni4me

"I immediately came under attack by the radical progressives on Twitter for days after I posted such a Tweet."
Out of curiosity I went to your twitter and scrolled about 20 or so tweets and most had few replies and some none. It would always benefit to attach the tweet link so we readers might grasp what you refer to. IMHO twitter is the cesspit of internet. I sometimes check what is hot topic or something but NEVER comment on anything.

GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest

Actually, the British left are copying the Dims (aka Democrats) in this country.

Tengen
Tengen

Have to disagree with Latkes above and say this election result was primarily about the economy, which it should be. Too many have been stagnant or declining while the City of London partied like it's 1999.

I just read a story of various UK celebrity tweets reacting to the election, mostly aghast and a few celebratory, but all of them were clueless. the ones against were what you'd expect, hand wringing about minorities and such. The ones for were just as bad, laying Labour's defeat at the door of being too soft on anti-Semitism! Everybody looks clueless, everyone looking at any cause other than what issues affect Britons in their day to day lives.

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer

Sorry for hijacking this thread:

Repo Madness

A very good friend called me and asked if I could explain the ongoing repo situation to him. Admittedly, I too have been a bit confused, just as I was when I first learned about sub-prime. How big is the problem? What’s its source? Is the problem what it seems to be, or is something far larger brewing? Is it a consequence of the Fed letting their account balance roll off? Is it due to regulations? Is something happening offshore? Is it a non-event? I believe it’s an issue we must keep on our radar, so I’m going to try to explain some of it here.

Let’s start with a definition. “Repo” is short for repurchase agreement. A repurchase agreement is essentially a short-term loan. Imagine you are a bank and you have clients who need to make payroll, but you don’t have enough cash on hand to cover the withdrawal. So you pledge a portion of your holdings (typically government securities) via a repurchase agreement with another bank. Bank B loans you the cash, you pledge your collateral, and you pay Bank B back tomorrow with interest. Bank B makes a little more money on the loan, picking up the yield on the government security and the interest you paid them.

There are all sorts of players who enter the repo market to solve various short-term needs. The big banks are the major ones and provide much of the liquidity. So why did rates spike from 2% to 10% in September? Why did the liquidity disappear? The simple answer is that there are not enough lenders willing to lend. The Fed has stepped in to put a Band-Aid on the problem, but the problem remains. They’ve now injected over $320 billion, and some estimate it will be over $500 billion by the month’s end. That’s a big Band-Aid, and there are no signs just yet that they will be able to rip it off.

Let’s get a little deeper into the details of repos. Repos are typically used to raise short-term capital. It’s a short-term loan; you need cash, so you pledge collateral to me and agree to pay me back tomorrow with interest. Some repos can be for 48 hours, but most are overnight. The implicit interest rate on these agreements is known as the repo rate, a proxy for the overnight risk-free rate. Repurchase agreements are generally considered safe investments since most agreements involve U.S. Treasury bonds posted as collateral. Repos are classified as a money market instrument. They are also a common tool of central bank open market operations.

Repurchase agreements can take place between a variety of parties. The Federal Reserve enters into repurchase agreements to regulate the money supply and bank reserves. Individuals normally use these agreements to finance the purchase of debt securities or other investments. Banks may use the liquidity for short-term funding needs.

The primary risk to the lender is counterparty risk, meaning that if Party 1 and Party 2 enter into an agreement and Party 2 defaults, Party 1 loses money. Party 2 may have posted collateral, but that collateral could become worthless if Party 2 goes bust, or if someone Party 2 loaned money to goes bust. Ultimately, if you lend money to your brother and he defaults, you’re screwed. Even though collateral is posted, there may be unknown risks to that collateral.

In these arrangements, a clearing agent or bank conducts the transactions between the buyer and seller to protect the interests of each. It holds the securities and ensures that the seller receives cash at the onset of the agreement and that the buyer transfers funds for the benefit of the seller and delivers the securities at maturation. The primary clearing banks for tri-party repo in the United States are JPMorgan Chase and Bank of New York Mellon.

Like prime rates, repo rates are set by central banks. The repo rate system allows governments to control the money supply within economies by increasing or decreasing available funds. A decrease in repo rates encourages banks to sell securities back to the government in return for cash. This increases the money supply available to the general economy. Conversely, by increasing repo rates, central banks can effectively decrease the money supply by discouraging banks from reselling these securities.

Well, something is wrong. The patient is bleeding. The doctor keeps applying more dressing, but the situation hasn’t improved.

From Bloomberg’s Liz McCormick on December 8, 2019:

Reserves — or cash that banks stash at the Fed — are the easiest asset for banks to tap when they want to quickly move money into repo. And it would’ve been logical for banks to pour cash into repo to get those 10% returns from an overnight loan. The four banks that dominate the market hold about 25% of the reserves in the U.S. banking system, but 50% of the Treasuries. That mismatch likely slowed the movement of cash into repo, the BIS researchers postulated. JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon has put the blame on regulators themselves. He said in October that his firm had the cash and willingness to calm short-term funding markets but liquidity rules for banks held it back. Some analysts have also pointed to a new corner of the market, which has seen immense growth: sponsored repo. This allows banks to transact with counterparties like money-market funds without impacting their balance sheet constraints. The downside is that it’s only available on an overnight basis, and as a result has further concentrated funding risk. Not only did the spike in the repo rate come as a surprise to the New York Fed, but they also haven’t been able to normalize it as quickly as they thought they could. Bloomberg Opinion columnist and chief economic adviser at Allianz SE Mohamed A. El-Erian said Monday on Bloomberg TV, “It hasn’t proven to be temporary. It hasn’t proved to be reversible without massive injections of liquidity. Which means that structural issues are playing a role.” “Temporary” keeps extending! The following chart shows the Fed has provided $322 billion in liquidity support to the repo market since the crisis first spiked in September.

Just what are structural issues? This from fishing friend David Bianco:

In its simplest form, the repo market is a collateralized loan. Post securities (mainly government securities) and get money. Even though the loan is collateralized, no one wants to be stuck with a default. So these loans have a credit component where premiums or over-collateralizations are required by some borrowers or others. This is not always important, but it is when markets get volatile and liquidity issues arise. The Fed views all banks as equal. Everyone that is a designated primary dealer can get the same terms, no questions asked. For now, this is not a problem. The repo market has been medicated into submission by the Fed’s support. But the longer the Fed goes this way, the greater it becomes a potential problem. After three months, the Fed should be discussing a way to return this market back to normal, back to the banks making a credit decision in handing out repo loans. Instead, they are still studying the issue, which means they still don’t understand the problem. They are also getting in deeper and deeper as the private sector seems to be withdrawing.

This market is too important to remain in this state. None of this is a problem now, but should Fed support become more permanent, there will be issues the next time the market undergoes a stressful period. Jim concludes, “The repo market is under control as long as the Fed controls it.”

But can they control it? The BIS noted the European repo market escaped the crisis, but added that it has become fragmented and poses a long-term risk. When banks no longer trust banks, they position to protect what they’ve got. It’s not the lion we see that might get us. It’s the three hiding in the bushes, away from our view.

The bigger picture concerns me: The central banks may be losing control of the economy with their ability to manipulate short-term rates. Rates sit near zero percent and $12 trillion is yielding less than zero in much of the developed world. That number is down from $17 trillion. Near or at zero, nonetheless. And what time bomb may be triggered if rates spike higher? Can the central banks control the economy? A lot of the time, yes. All of the time, no. We sit late stage in one of the greatest central bank experiments of all time. This is now a question of confidence. As Martin Armstrong said in a recent blog, “The biggest danger we face is waking up to the realization that central banks can no longer control the economy. Once that is understood in the market place, the fun and games will begin.”

This is not Quantitative Easing like what we got in QEs 1, 2 and 3. This Fed intervention has zero impact economically, though you could argue that it does, as it is supporting short-term liquidity needs to keep the repo market functioning. I believe this may really be about the Fed trying to prevent short-term rates from rising. If they fail to do that, the issue may spill over into other markets. That would be bad news in a world awash in debt—much of it short-term. If that debt rolls over at higher interest rates, it stresses already stressed government budgets.

I’m not sure we know all of the issues behind the repo crisis, just like I underestimated the size and global scope of the sub-prime issue when it first surfaced. I can tell you my smart friends are battening down the hatches. Keep stepping forward, but do turn your lights on. The party rolls on for now, but have your stop-loss exit triggers firmly in place. Another storm is brewing.

Freebees2me
Freebees2me

..........That phone call will never happen. Nor will Hillary nor Corbyn ever look in the mirror and blame themselves.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Liberalism is a mental disorder

Liberalism cannot grasp wealth creation. It begins with the inability to understand that a change made in one portion of a complex system will have unintended ramifications in another part of the system. This is caused by intellectual blindness which is the result of a huge ego, i.e., I see the complete problem - I know better. And yet, the illiberal person cannot see that whacking one mole on the head is the direct and proximate cause of another mole popping up. To the illiberal, the two events are completely unrelated to each other.

Therefore, taking every dime from (so called) rich people must result in spreading the wealth, and it does, but only very short-term. And in the process, grabbing the wealth completely destroys the wealth creation system sending 'wealth creation. into a death spiral of poverty, corruption and ultimately violence.

GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest

But Mish! Who in their right mind wants President Bidden or Presdent Bloomberg? Next thing you know soda pop will be criminalized with a mandatory 3 year sentence. Nope, Boomberg is your typical lefty control freak, and Bidden is a crooked, senile, old coot. Beside Trump brings humor to the White House: something that will be sorely needed as the Greater Depression plays out.

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer

Mish you keep making the same mistake on Trump. 6 months ago you said the Mueller report was the end. I said Trump would be impeached by the end of the year and we are here. Now hear this. I say Trump has an 80% chance of being removed from office by the Senate based on new information that will emerge in January. One or multiple Trump administration officials will come forward with new information. In short Trump has only a 20% chance of making it the 2020 election much less winning it. He has to survive through April in order to survive this. As I've always maintained. There is a long way to go. Times are going to get worse for Trump very soon.

GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest

@ Causual_Observer

Let's see: Joe Bidden abuses his office to gets his neerdowell, cocaine sniffing kid a cushy position as the expense of Ukranian peasants. Bidden then threatens to withhold aid unless they drop an investigation of his son. Trump suggests in a phone conversation that it is ok with him if they reopen the case on Hunter. And the Dim believe Trump did an impeachable act? I guess the sheeple, who graze from the MSM can really be led to believe anything.

Of course the same scenario was played out in the Mueller investigation...

leicestersq
leicestersq

Mish,

I think that you have this wrong. Whilst Jeremy Corbyn is a bit left, I don't think that it was that which did for him. It really was Brexit.

At the previous election, he had pledged to carry out Brexit. When it came down to it, he didn't. As a result, very few people trusted him this time around. He was particularly hammered in the north where working people who would have voted for him and his other policies remembered his Brexit pledge and voted Tory. They were right too, cos it doesn't matter what you stand for, how can anyone vote for you if you don't do everything in your power to carry out your electoral pledges?

The LibDems suffered from this same problem when they reneged on an electoral pledge when they went into coalition with the Tories.

Boris got away with it because he rightly calculated that kicking out the remainer Tories would restore his party's credibility.

This development of not voting for politicians who renege on their manifesto policies is an encouraging development.

Mish
Mish

Editor

The Notion that there is an 80% chance Trump will be removed from office is ridiculous.

Hell even the House Democrats are splintering

Mish
Mish

Editor

Reflections on Moot questions:

"But Mish! Who in their right mind wants President Biden or President Bloomberg?"

The question is moot or badly phrased or something.

1: If you are a democrat and the choice is Bloomberg or Trump, whom do you vote for?

2: If you are an independent, or a businessman, and yes there are Democrat businessmen, and the choice is Warren or Bloomberg, whom do you vote for?

It's not about wanting Bloomberg, It's about not being able to vote for Warren under any circumstances.

If it is Trump vs Warren, Independents and even some Democrats will vote Trump.

If it is Trump vs Bloomberg - 100% of the democrats will vote Bloomberg even if they cannot stand him. And there will be some independents and perhaps even some republicans who would vote for Bloomberg simply because they hate Trump (but just not enough to vote for Warren).

Count Rumford
Count Rumford

Mish, I’m a long time reader first time poster. Voted Democratic for prez every time since I was 18. Now 70 and voting GREEN this time around. You’ll say how ya gonna pay for it. I say they haven’t impeached anybody and I believe they would look past blow jobs and phone calls and maybe pay attention to us, as in you and I. Call me crazy and foolish. I am totally disaffected and will give money and have a lawn sign out. Go Green. I have suppressed my inner libertarian. Regards

Herkie
Herkie

Mish, I am going to do something I have never done before, skip your post based upon your headline and comment without reading the far right crap.

It is beneath you to compare the situation in Brexit UK to what is happening in the USA under Trump, the fat assed orange spy installed by Putin. I am ashamed and embarrassed for you.

How you could be so right about British politics and yet so wrong about American politics is just unexplainable.

Even Nancy Pelosi does not expect Trump to be removed from office via impeachment, but she and ALL other democrats must do the right thing and try. Trump is a criminal that has abused the office and deserves nothing less than removal, the GOP has caved to his amoral bribery and failure, he who has tripled the deficits of Obama when he left office, the USA is doomed as it is because of wealth ineqaulity. The democrats are honest enough to make that part of their policy, the GOP is in total denial. The GOP thinks they will get away with their crimes, if the British vote proved anything to you it should not be that conservatives win but that the people win.

And the PEOPLE won in the UK last night. Not the conservatives, not Boris Johnson, not politics as usual or the Brussels bureaucracy or the mandarins of Frankfurt.

The US is bigger, more powerful, more diverse, and Trump is a proven criminal. It will come to a head in the first weeks of primary voting, some red states will vote overwhelmingly for the fat assed Nazi certainly, but the vote this time will not be 60 million GOP to 63 million democrats. It will be more like 58 million GOP to 74 million democrats. Just as BoJo walked away with a landslide because the people spoke. Americans were shocked at Trump's win with russian help. They are not going to let that happen again.

Mish
Mish

Editor

"Mish, I am going to do something I have never done before, skip your post based upon your headline and comment without reading the far right crap.

It is beneath you to compare the situation in Brexit UK to what is happening in the USA under Trump, the fat assed orange spy installed by Putin. I am ashamed and embarrassed for you."

It is beyond stupid to comment on an article without reading it. Moreover, I am not "far right" and I don't like Trump.

I am a free market Libertarian.

That aside, if you bothered to read and not make a fool of yourself, Corbyn and Warren have amazingly similar ideas.

Mish

AWC
AWC

“If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.” HL Mencken

Bastiat
Bastiat

The situation is indeed very similar to the US. 43% said they didn't vote Labour because of the leadership according to an Opinium poll. Yet instead of rationally analysing why they lost, the radicals have already started blaming the "racist ignorant working class" for "voting against their own interest". On both sides of the Atlantic, it's always someone else's fault and because voters are not "pure" enough unlike them. These radicals have zero capacity for self-criticism and are a political losing machine.

Mish
Mish

Editor

Anyone who accuses me of "far right crap" does not know who I am or what I stand for.

I am extremely anti-war. It is none of my business if two males want to get married. etc.

Right-Wing? Hardly.

But it's time to face the facts: Corbyn and Warren are extreme left wing Marxists

thimk
thimk

Ya - a good assessment , the dems and they realize it; can't produce a viable more moderate candidate . Notice bloomberg entering after the Biden issues surfaced . also social media is heavily influenced by the ultra left and probable doesn't reflect the views of the majority voting public.

GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest

FYI: A discussion of the terms right and left

I like Paul Gottfried definition of the right and left.

The right believes in hierarchy and that society should organize itself accordingly.

The left believes in egalitarianism and believes everyone is the same and the heavy fist of the state should make it so.

Of course hypocrisy abounds on both sides. But it is more extreme on the left. For example, Princess Pelosi clearly believes she's entitled to more than your average rube.

Under this definition, a free society is always right wing. A far left society is always totalitarian. In both, there is hierarchy. In a right wing libertarian society, the hierarchy is established through the self organization of civil institutions. On the left it is established through the force of the state. Of course the right can also use the force of the state as in Germany. Gottfried differs with others in that he places Hitler on the right versus the left. Clearly Hitler believed in hierarchy. Some placed him on the left because he adopted many of the collectivist ideas of the socialists.

Latkes
Latkes

By today's definitions, the Founding Fathers were far right or even worse.

stillCJ
stillCJ

Editor

Crazy people are incapable of realizing that they are nuts. TDS sufferers have that problem.

AndrewUK
AndrewUK

Labour made two huge mistakes. First their Brexit policy was ridiculous. Few weeks ago Thornbury was on Question Time and she sat there waffling that she would go and negotiate a new deal, bring it back and campaign against it ! As Iain Dale pointed out 'Do you have any idea how ridiculous that policy is??' The audience laughed. And it got worse: some one pointed out that if they put their deal to a Referendum no one on the front bench would campaign for it. It was pathetic.
The second was Corbyn himself. As the Telegraph pointed out about a month ago, dislike of Corbyn on the doorstep has solidified into visceral hatred. I have to say that it is shaming that such a man as this could become the leader of a major political party. Personally I believe he is anti-semitic. You only have to watch his demeanour and body language when asked about this to see there is a problem.

As to the Democrats they are busy digging their own grave with all this Impeachment crap. There is no case and never has been, but if it goes to the Senate and a trial there is a chance that the President will very effectively turn the tables. Biden is corrupt and there are questions around what the Cokehead was doing and what warranted a million dollars a year when if he had sat on the board of Exxon for example he would been lucky to get a tenth of that. The IG Report was shocking and I am sure there will be criminal trials from Durham. And all roads lead back to the DNC, Hillary and the Obama White House. If I was President Trump I would open a few windows and let daylight in because the American people will be shocked, dismayed and furious at what would be revealed. I hope he is reelected because the Democrats deserve everything they will get and more besides.

GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest

Trump is hated by half the country because the MSM preaches "Trump Hate" 24/7. So much for the 2 minutes of hate from 1984. Trump is Emmanuel Goldstein.

Trump Derangement Syndrome: a fearful, incurable affliction more terrible and humiliating than Alzheimer’s: Better to forget who you are than remember you are a hate-crazed, foaming at the mouth, credulous idiot who will believe anything.

I agree with Doug Casey on Trump.

"Let me start by saying that I’m very pleased that Trump was elected because, first and foremost, he’s not Hillary. In addition, he’s never been in political office. So he lacks some of the vices common to professional politicians. Even better, all members of the Deep State reflexively hate him.

That’s a good thing, because there’s some truth to the meme “the enemy of my enemy just might be my friend.”

I also like some of the things Trump’s done since he’s been in office—besides driving liberals and Deep Staters insane. He’s done some deregulating—not nearly enough, but he’s moved in the right direction. Of course, he did this not because he understands Austrian economics, but simply because he’s a businessman. He has some personal experience with the destructiveness of regulations.

Of course, he hasn’t done nearly enough yet. He’s just mowing the grass and trimming the hedges. He should be pulling these things out by their roots and sowing Agent Orange where they grew.

The same goes for taxes. His tax cut was helpful, but not drastic. And there hasn’t been a cut in spending. In fact he’s significantly increasing spending. So the tax cut is mainly cosmetic. The government will extract those resources from the economy, mainly by selling more debt."

Blurtman
Blurtman

Don't attempt to overturn the will of the Deplorables. Except to bail out the criminal banks, that is.

marc0
marc0

Mish, Corbyn would have done well had he not switched his position on brexit and a second referrendum. By doing so he lost the support of crucial working class voters.

Bam_Man
Bam_Man

Gotta hand it to Gaddaffi. With that uniform and that whole "look", he defined how to go "Full Banana Republic".

crazyworld
crazyworld

Congratulations Mish, your predictions and analysis about Corbyn, Johnson and the Brexit events have been right from the start.

RonJ
RonJ

"Tax on second homes"

Bernie Sanders has three.

JayTe
JayTe

Mike, Although your criticism about Corbyn's policies is relevant, as an American who has lived and travelled widely across the UK, your assessment of why he lost the elections is way off. The key aspect as to why Corbyn lost has to do primarily with Brexit and the utter lack of respect that the political class (especially those based in London) show towards people he live in the more rural parts of England. Not very dissimilar to what happened to Hilary Clinton and her view of people living in deep America (i.e. the deplorables). Note that many of these hard working, salt of the earth people generally tend to vote Labour because they come from working class backgrounds. And many of them voted Labour (and Corbyn) despite his policies not being terribly different from what they were during the previous election which is why he did so well. What actually transpired is despite 70% of people who identify themselves as Labour, voting for Brexit, about 58% of the Labour members of Parliament supported Remain. Corbyn was a Brexit supporter but was pushed during the last Labour conference to switch allegiance to Remain by the Labour members of parliament because they were hell bent on stopping Brexit. As such, all the support that Corbyn had from Labour supporters in the north evaporated because he went from being a Labour man of principle to just another Westminster politician. If there is one thing that I know from living here for more than 15 years, once people from the north of England make a decision (such as deciding to leave the EU), they were never ever going to be bullied into changing their view by the media, the Westminster Establishment or anyone else. So they just ALL switched their vote to Labour because Johnson realised that the key to winning the election was to deliver Brexit and respect the choice of the population.

Mish
Mish

Editor

Mish
Mish

Editor

@JayTe I believe you cannot read.

I accurately stated, well in advance the election changed from a referendum on Brexit to a referendum on Corbyn.

The post election polls show that analysis was 100% spot on.

That poll reflects two things: His nutcase policies in general and his nutcase policy on Brexit.

Corbyn is responsible for both. And both mattered. I was 100% bang on: THis was a referendum on Corbyn.

Yes, he lost the "red wall" but he could not even improve in London which was pro-remain. He lost a lot of pro-remain seats.

Why? He is a radical marxist nucase.

That's why.

Pater_Tenebrarum
Pater_Tenebrarum

Regardless of what the main reason for Corbyn's defeat was, his economic program would have been disastrous. Almost all of what he proposed has already been tried in the UK (minus the coerced syndicalism and the theft of privately owned buildings) and by the late 70s not even the garbage was picked up anymore.

Jackula
Jackula

Medicare for all combined with open borders...that dog don't hunt and all of us deplorables know this.

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer

I thought you were smarter than this Mish. Calling people an -ist or -ism based on what they say is just so beneath you and nearly everyone here. Can you not see politics for what it is? Candidates are taught from the high school election to cater to their electorate. I dont care who the candidate is but I can assure you they dont believe in anything but catering to the voters that get them to then general election. For God sake Trump won with evangelicals in some primaries. Candidates beliefs will change depending on which way the wind blows each day.


Global Economics

FEATURED
COMMUNITY