**** Official President Barack Obama / Govenor Mitt Romney Presidential Thread (November 6th Election)****

[Pooh]

I'm pretty much done talking about the election and the stock market has spoken earlier today. Today was the 2nd worst day after election sell off in the stock market since the 1940's. The worst? When Obama was elected in 2008. My advice. Buy all the way down, and it will be a while.

There are a handful of very successful people who post on PFA. All are Republicans. There's a reason for it.

What did the DJIA say by going from 8000 to 13000 during Obama's term?

I'm sure your strategy of cherry picking small data sets that contradict the larger data set has made you a wildly successful investor.

Its called quantitative easing. Artificially inflating the stock market by pumping trillions of dollars into the economy which most on wall street said didn't work yet your kids will be the ones paying for it. That's how you explain a stock market almost doubling without any real economic growth to speak of. The two WORST post election sell offs since the 40's were both after Obama was elected. Hey, at least it wasn't a 5% loss like 2008.

Do you follow the stock market? If you do you would notice that every time the president speaks the market tanks the following day. Without fail, every fucking time.

[Walter Sobchak]

What did the DJIA say by going from 8000 to 13000 during Obama's term?

I'm sure your strategy of cherry picking small data sets that contradict the larger data set has made you a wildly successful investor.

Its called quantitative easing. Artificially inflating the stock market by pumping trillions of dollars into the economy which most on wall street said didn't work yet your kids will be the ones paying for it. That's how you explain a stock market almost doubling without any real economic growth to speak of. The two WORST post election sell offs since the 40's were both after Obama was elected. Hey, at least it wasn't a 5% loss like 2008.

Do you follow the stock market? If you do you would notice that every time the president speaks the market tanks the following day. Without fail, every fucking time.

So the high levels onthe stock market couldn't be because corporate profits are at historically high levels despite the economy not being good for average people? Most economists think that's what it is.

Also please explain how our future generations are going to "pay" for quantitative easing, since (1) the Fed is lending its own money which is completely separate from the taxpayers' money and (2) the government securities it is purchasing would be issued even without QE, just probably at slightly higher interest rates and/or longer maturities. Every Treasury bond auction is many times oversubscribed. If the Fed doesn't buy some private bank or foreign government would have got them.

[4Dragons]

I can see the Republican party fracturing in the future. 1. Christian nutjobs that care only about abortion and gay rights, nothing is more important than forcing Americans to live as the bible says to. These peeps are exactly the opposite of Repubs in the 70's when the govt had no business in peoples personal lives. 2. Tea party and all who think the only way to improve govt is to eliminate it piece by piece or defund agencies to the point of being completely ineffective. These folks also seem to want to sell or privatize every bit of infrastructure or service provided by feds or locals, such as roads, bridges, food inspections, airline safety, pharmacutecials, parking meters and garages, water and sewage treatment plants, buildings (imagine paying rent on the Supreme Court building to a commericial real estate firm) and so on to reduce debt, defecits and the size of govt by any means. 3. Those that lean Libertarian currently. 4. Centrists, old school repubs that realize and appericate the role of govt in a well functioning society and are willing to listen to a variety of viewpoints and make something beyond a knee jerk decision based on dogma.

It won't fracture any more than the democratic party being infiltrated by fabians. It needs to be pushed aside. It's clear that more people voted for social issues instead of financial ones. Business owners are already coming forward and saying that they will begin the mass firings, not based on a religious belief, not based on who gives a shit about an abortion law that won't be overturned anyway, but because of a healthcare law that they can't afford. Bad policy, it seems, has repercussions and nobody is quite to the point yet where the pain is so great that maybe it hasn't hit them where they live yet. You can't go out and party if your bank account is dry. But who knows, maybe to some people that a free phone, some food stamps and a hand full of birth control pills is a step up.

[DirtyB]

Know this: you guys don't believe polls because you don't like facts. I know you are sitting there bewildered trying to find the scapegoat. The scapegoat is you and your rejection of science and reason in favor of hatred of your fellow man at every turn. Us vs them mentality. Stop throwing what amounts to basically Republican gang signs and join Azzclown in recognizing exactly what America's problem: you would rather be riught than be great. Sucks worse when you are wrong.

[DirtyB]

What did the DJIA say by going from 8000 to 13000 during Obama's term?

I'm sure your strategy of cherry picking small data sets that contradict the larger data set has made you a wildly successful investor.

Its called quantitative easing.

If that was true, there would be spikes around when the two rounds of QE were announced. But instead we've seen steady growth in the DJIA for the past 4 years.

[vegas1369]

Really good breakdown by the Wall Street Journal as to why Romney lost this election...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-ra...om-romney.html

[NaturalBornHustler]

Really good breakdown by the Wall Street Journal as to why Romney lost this election...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-ra...om-romney.html

He lost it because there are less white people voting/in the populatio and minorities overwhelmingly voted for the black guy. Minorities are flooding the country, the white race is being diminished and if the right can't get at least the latino's back they will never win again.

Pretty hard when the opposition is a man of color though, that changes everything. People like to vote for or get behind people like them, it has been proven in many studies. Then add in the "white guilt" vote and Obama couldn't lose if he tried.

Thank God for term limits, so we can get back to an even playing field in 2016 with a killer candidate in Christie.

[4Dragons]

Really good breakdown by the Wall Street Journal as to why Romney lost this election...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-ra...om-romney.html

He lost it because there are less white people voting/in the populatio and minorities overwhelmingly voted for the black guy. Minorities are flooding the country, the white race is being diminished and if the right can't get at least the latino's back they will never win again.

Pretty hard when the opposition is a man of color though, that changes everything. People like to vote for or get behind people like them, it has been proven in many studies. Then add in the "white guilt" vote and Obama couldn't lose if he tried.

Thank God for term limits, so we can get back to an even playing field in 2016 with a killer candidate in Christie.

OMG JUST SHUT IT DOWN.

http://unskewedpolls.com/2012electorate_2.cfm

[Deal]

I'm convinced NBH is actually Searles trolling us. Nobody can be this consistently wrong without trying.

[NaturalBornHustler]

I'm convinced NBH is actually Searles trolling us. Nobody can be this consistently wrong without trying.

Wrong about what exactly?

[NaturalBornHustler]

He lost it because there are less white people voting/in the populatio and minorities overwhelmingly voted for the black guy. Minorities are flooding the country, the white race is being diminished and if the right can't get at least the latino's back they will never win again.

Pretty hard when the opposition is a man of color though, that changes everything. People like to vote for or get behind people like them, it has been proven in many studies. Then add in the "white guilt" vote and Obama couldn't lose if he tried.

Thank God for term limits, so we can get back to an even playing field in 2016 with a killer candidate in Christie.

OMG JUST SHUT IT DOWN.

http://unskewedpolls.com/2012electorate_2.cfm

Let me rephrase, he needs more of the white vote because of all the latinos/minorities voting for Obama.

I'm pretty high and I wrote it wrong. Sue me.

Anything else that I said in that paragraph you have an issue with? Didn't think so, because it is all fucking true.

[Pooh]

Its called quantitative easing. Artificially inflating the stock market by pumping trillions of dollars into the economy which most on wall street said didn't work yet your kids will be the ones paying for it. That's how you explain a stock market almost doubling without any real economic growth to speak of. The two WORST post election sell offs since the 40's were both after Obama was elected. Hey, at least it wasn't a 5% loss like 2008.

Do you follow the stock market? If you do you would notice that every time the president speaks the market tanks the following day. Without fail, every fucking time.

So the high levels onthe stock market couldn't be because corporate profits are at historically high levels despite the economy not being good for average people? Most economists think that's what it is.

Also please explain how our future generations are going to "pay" for quantitative easing, since (1) the Fed is lending its own money which is completely separate from the taxpayers' money and (2) the government securities it is purchasing would be issued even without QE, just probably at slightly higher interest rates and/or longer maturities. Every Treasury bond auction is many times oversubscribed. If the Fed doesn't buy some private bank or foreign government would have got them.

You're not nearly as smart as you think you are regarding the stock market.

[Pooh]

Its called quantitative easing.

If that was true, there would be spikes around when the two rounds of QE were announced. But instead we've seen steady growth in the DJIA for the past 4 years.

Do some research before you spout. Nearly all of the true gains in the stock market came immediately after QE was either announced or speculated on by the Fed. Look it up.

[Pooh]

Let me clarify. The fed doesn't just out of the blue come out and say, "hey guys, we're gonna inject another 800 billion into the economy to try and stimulate growth." This comes out after they have a quarterly meeting usually. The other three months are the traders speculating QE, with the stock market moving up or down based on whether they think its coming. Sure, some of the increase has come from better profits but its been mostly QE and QE speculation.

Here's a fact. Historically the stock market has done better when a democrat has been president. However, wall street hates Obama. The two biggest election day sell offs since the 1940's has been the day after Obama has been elected. 5% in 2008 and over 2% yesterday. That's a fact too, Barry.

Any idiot can look at a long term chart and see the market has gradually gone up but unless you follow the economy and the market on a daily, if not hourly basis, you won't know why exactly the market is moving. All the major up days have been either when the fed speculated or announced QE, or when Europe announced plans to save their economy. The big down days occurred when the fed failed to announce or fears about Europe failing. Profits of individual companies has little to do with the rally, which is unusual.

[PLOL]

It's pretty obvious why Romney lost. "Romney campaign used me in 6 primary states and won every one- they should have used me in Florida and Ohio & he would be President." - Donald Trump

[DirtyB]

If that was true, there would be spikes around when the two rounds of QE were announced. But instead we've seen steady growth in the DJIA for the past 4 years.

Do some research before you spout. Nearly all of the true gains in the stock market came immediately after QE was either announced or speculated on by the Fed. Look it up.

Do you know how to read a graph? You must be the worst investor on Earth.



The red line is Obama's inauguration. The green lines are the announcements of the two rounds of QE1. The blue line is QE2. And the purple is QE3. One of the four correlates to any increase in the DJIA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...mittee_actions

[Corrigan]

Pooh has the most financial acumen on this board since fminc

[Gordman]

Do some research before you spout. Nearly all of the true gains in the stock market came immediately after QE was either announced or speculated on by the Fed. Look it up.

Do you know how to read a graph? You must be the worst investor on Earth.



The red line is Obama's inauguration. The green lines are the announcements of the two rounds of QE1. The blue line is QE2. And the purple is QE3. One of the four correlates to any increase in the DJIA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...mittee_actions

Is there really supposed to be spikes when they QE? I'm genuinely asking a question on this and would like to see proof that you are actually going to see spikes when they enact this. I am just checking in here and really don't want to waste my night researching this because I have plenty of other things to do. But I was under the assumption that it would probably happen in small chunks over a determined period of time rather than one big lump transaction; kind of like when a mutual fund or other investment portfolio decides to go ahead and buy a specific amount of a certain stock - usually they don't do it all at once like alot of people assume, many times they make several transactions. I think there might be a difference between a QE announcement and when the transactions actually take place and are completed. Like I said, I don't know enough about this to give a true opinion, but I would really like to see more specific info on time periods and chunks of QE or if it is just really done in one shot like you claim.

[DirtyB]

Do you know how to read a graph? You must be the worst investor on Earth.



The red line is Obama's inauguration. The green lines are the announcements of the two rounds of QE1. The blue line is QE2. And the purple is QE3. One of the four correlates to any increase in the DJIA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...mittee_actions

Is there really supposed to be spikes when they QE? I'm genuinely asking a question on this and would like to see proof that you are actually going to see spikes when they enact this. I am just checking in here and really don't want to waste my night researching this because I have plenty of other things to do. But I was under the assumption that it would probably happen in small chunks over a determined period of time rather than one big lump transaction; kind of like when a mutual fund or other investment portfolio decides to go ahead and buy a specific amount of a certain stock - usually they don't do it all at once like alot of people assume, many times they make several transactions. I think there might be a difference between a QE announcement and when the transactions actually take place and are completed. Like I said, I don't know enough about this to give a true opinion, but I would really like to see more specific info on time periods and chunks of QE or if it is just really done in one shot like you claim.

Disclaimer- I do not remotely claim to be well versed on the stock market. Strangely, all of my stock ownership was between the ages of 13 and 22.

Stock prices in general, and thus the Dow Jones Industrial Average, are in some ways based on numbers like profits and market share. But in a very real way, stock prices are based on what everyone else thinks the price will be in the near future. If more people think the price will go up in the future than go down in the future, more people want to buy than sell, and thus the sellers can demand more money- and the price goes up. That doesn't involve price to earnings ratios or a single number. People want to buy, so the price goes up. If people think that the stock market, in aggregate, is going to move up, they move their money from bonds and other investments into stocks- and then the stock market, in aggregate, moves up.

Because of this predictive nature of the stock market, you don't have to wait until something actually happens for it to affect the market. As soon as everyone knows, or even thinks, that something will happen, it is "priced into" the market. That's why companies can announce earnings that are actually very good, but below what analysts predicted, and have their stock price plummet. The previous price was already assuming that they would hit the estimates.

Back to the case at hand, as soon as the Fed announced that they were going to drop money from helicopters, the market immediately took into account that it would happen- even though it hadn't happened yet. The Fed doesn't announce that they are going to do something unless they are really, really going to do it. All of the models and estimates were updated with the new information and stocks were bought and sold accordingly.

And even more to the point, I was responding to this post that claims the market gains came "immediately after" the announcements.

Do some research before you spout. Nearly all of the true gains in the stock market came immediately after QE was either announced or speculated on by the Fed. Look it up.

By just looking at the chart you can clearly see that's not true.

[SixToedPete]