Correct, David.
In 2016, Trump won Iowa 51.15% vs Clinton 41.74%.
The latest Emerson poll is almost a replica of the two last election cycles.
Moderator: bbmods
Correct, David.
Lots of other examples in the article about stocks that would have benefited from a Trump win. In the past week though, things have been a bit different. Seems the investors aren't so sure anymore and have been selling off.For much of this year, investors have been betting heavily on Donald Trump winning back the presidency. Over the past few days, they’ve gotten cold feet.
When Joe Biden was still running, a win for Trump appeared a lay-down misere, so investors piled into securities that would benefit from a Trump victory. Even when Kamala Harris entered the race, displacing Biden, the Trump trade still flourished.
Investors pushed up the value of the US dollar and bond yields rose because of the effects that Trump’s tax, trade and immigration policies were expected to have.
So it doesn't necessarily mean a Kamala Win, but it does mean that lots of investors who were betting on a Trump victory are getting cold feet and, at worst, taking their profit now.Trump Media shares bounced on Monday to close at $US34.34, a 12.4 per cent gain. A week ago, however, they were trading above $US51 a share. The company has lost $US3.4 billion ($5.2 billion) in market value in the week, with Trump shedding almost $US2 billion in paper wealth.
Moving for Trump now... he's $1.53-$1.60, Harris $2.35-$2.50
David wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 9:25 pm One thing I don’t get about this is that Kamala Harris is $51 while a range of novelty or long-shot candidates have shorter odds (e.g. Michelle Obama at $18, Robert F Kennedy Jr at $21). Yet if Biden dies or is forced to step down due to health issues, particularly in the second half of the year, Harris will be the Democratic candidate and surely be at least a half-decent chance to win, even if she’d be seen as the underdog against Trump. That to me is a far more plausible outcome than $51 suggests.