All errors should be reported to

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Trump as a stock

Chris Arnade studied math in college, traded bonds afterward, and then one day he decided to look for America. With camera in hand he headed to the country. Arnade thinks Hillary will win big, but he does respect Trump supporters.

He explained Trump as a stock.

Not an original thought...
But unlike Kristol, Arnade knows what he is talking about.

From Arnade:
In choosing a candidate, a voter is buying into that candidate. It is, in an oversimplified way, like buying a stock. In that sense, it is helpful to use some basic analysis from finance, to look at how/why voters make the choices they do.
It's the penny stock versus the blue chips.

The elites are not Trump voters:
The elites have removed themselves physically. They cluster in certain towns (NYC, LA, Northern Virginia, Boston) and within those towns in certain neighborhoods. They dress differently. They eat differently. There is a culture of elitism. 
The best single measure of elitism I see is education, the type and amount. A Harvard professor of sociology is more similar (despite different politics) to a Wall Street trader, than either is to a truck driver in Appleton, Wisconsin, or a waitress in Selma, or a construction worker in Detroit.
Now my take -- not necessarily Arnade's -- is that in order to remain an elite, you must back Hillary, either overtly or in the passive-aggressive manner of Never Trump. This is like 2008, when you had to back Obama to remain elite. Sarah Palin gave conservatives an out. Ew, yucky. This is why Peggy Noonan said two months before the election, it is over.

Back to Arnade. He explained that the non-elites see the elites cashing in on Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama and are backing Trump:
Frustrated with broken promises, they gave up on the knowable and went with the unknowable. They chose Trump, because he comes with a very high distribution. A high volatility. (He also signals in ugly ways, that he might just move them, and only them and their friends, higher with his stated policies).
As any trader will tell you, if you are stuck lower, you want volatility, uncertainty. No matter how it comes. Put another way. Your downside is flat, your upside isn't. Break the system. 
The elites loathe volatility. Because, the upside is limited, but the downside isn't. In option language, they are in the money.
I prefer to think of Trump as a lottery ticket because - and this may be me projecting -- I do not expect Trump to do much if anything that he wants. But like Reagan in 1980 and Gingrich in 1994, what do we have to lose?

Arnade made it plain that it is not just economic issues that separate the elite from the rest of us. There are social values that

In part two of his piece, Arnade wrote:
Clinton has a few strategies.
1) Convince them she can also move them higher.
This would require a highly symbolic act to show Trump voters she gets them, a Sister Souljah moment (Google it kids.)
Given how far away, socially/culturally, she is from them, it would need something on the order of going hunting and shooting a doe, then eating it raw. Or backing Texas secession. Or more realistically, a highly visible dis of the black-lives movement. 
 It isn’t going to happen, because, A) anything of that magnitude would risk too much of her base. B) She does have some fundamental morals/ethics.
2) Convince Trump voters they do have downside.
I don't think she can do either of these things. I believe she will not even try. Like Gore, Kerry, and Obama, she will scapegoat white, male, Christians -- much like other tyrants in history targeted Jews.

Oh and she does not like Jews, either.

Coming soon -- "Trump the Press: Don Surber's take on how the pundits blew the 2016 Republican race."


  1. "She does have some fundamental morals/ethics."

    1. The cognitive dissonance is strong in the elites. Even if it is staring them in the face they can't say she is a black hole of evil.

    2. "She does have some fundamental morals/ethics."

      No, none, sorry.

    3. What is oh-so-revealing about that phrase is that the author knows the word "morals" cannot be applied to Clinton, but must be glossed as "morals/ethics".

    4. Arnade: (Hillary) does have some fundamental morals/ethics. Really? Other than Bad And Worse?

  2. This is pretty good Don. It captures our separation of cultural powers well. I know many examples in each group,but I cannot say how to reconcile them. For sure the uppercrust prefer communities consisting entirely of their fellow saints. Trump is not a saint, though, which is why I like him.

  3. So he really does think she'll blow it; he just can't admit it to himself.

  4. Well, don't forget. The electronic voting machines have already been preprogrammed for Hillary.

  5. Hillary is to bitter, brittle, and inflexible to do a Sister Souljah maneuvar. She is a stiff. She can barely manage a conventional and orthodox campaign against a declared socialist who joined the Democrats last year - and she needed all of the help of the DNC to do that.

    Trump is not a conventional politician and his campaign is completely unorthodox. He put away over a dozen professional politicians (and nonpoliticians). Campaign consultants spent tens of millions only to lose to him; the esteemed punditocracy completely misunderstood him.

    No, Hillary is going to have her hands full, and I wonder if anyone on her team has any real grasp on how they are going to beat Trump.

    - Mikey NTH

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. The only reason Hillary might win---if she's not indicted by the DoJ---is because the many voters who don't pay much attention to anything that goes on beyond their daily lives are familiar with her in the role of politician. She's been around a long, long time. People identify her closely with that role, and feel comfortable with pigeonholing her as a politician.

    Donald Trump is new to them in the role as politician. They don't identify him in that role, and may not even be comfortable with him in that role. Trump of course thinks this is perhaps his best selling point, and I'm inclined to agree with him, but I'm not sure the average apolitical guy/gal voter in the street is going to see it that way. Change for them is hard; new for them is hard; they like the familiar; they trust the familiar (even if in this case the familiar one is a liar and a cheat). Hillary as politician is familiar; Donald Trump is not.

    To become as familiar with Trump the politician as they are with Hillary the politician, such voters would have to study, to investigate, to think about policy and issues, to compare the two sides. This is "work", something many people just do not want to do....ever. Indeed, the more consequential it is to do the "research," the less people want to do it. It's psychological avoidance.

    I say advantage Hillary.

  8. Trump as a stock?

    Nah, he's more of a gravy. Which beats the elites' gravitas any day.

    I wonder whether the Looney Tunes Chowhound would come out of retirement to do a series of anti-NeverTrump commercials.

    "What! Youse forgot the gravy?!"

  9. I don't mean to be callous, but DJT's stock just rose about another five percent after the Orlando massacre. And if ANYBODY thinks that Hillary is gonna allow CCW, they are out of their effing mind.

  10. @zregime: You know the press and the Libs will turn this tragedy into an argument over gun control. As is usually the case with the Left, the rights of the many must be subjugated to the rights of a few or, as in this case, the burden must be shifted to the large majority when the blame belongs with the small minority. I am sure Hillary will be claiming this incident provides vindication for her position on gun control. In Hillary world, black is white, up is down, the left is right.

    1. She may possibly sell more guns than Obama. I don't think she'll have the opportunity he did.