With the Iowa caucuses finally occurring tomorrow night, February 1st, it seems the topic’s dominated the news for the past few months. Resultant of all that media coverage, curiosity arose as to the events accuracy regarding actual presidential outcomes.
According to desmoinesregister.com, “In six presidential cycles dating back to 1980, the straw poll winner (or co-winner) went on to capture just three caucuses, two nominations and one presidential election.”
Which means that over the past 36 years in which 9 presidential elections took place, as far as nominees are concerned, the poll’s been correct only 22% of the time. In regard to the presidency itself, the percentage drops to 11.
Therefore, as a statistical indicator, despite the millions spent by candidates and carloads of hot air expelled, the caucuses themselves have roughly the same value as a dart-thrower wearing a blindfold.
On another aspect of the value of predictions in general, Gail MarksJarvis Contact Reporter @chicagotribune.com/business wrote today about the horrendous start to the year for trading stock, and what the foreseeable future holds.
The article begins: “In other words, the first month of this year looks like a bad omen for what's to come yet in 2016. But should you believe it, or worry that a bear market is on its way?”
Statistically: “January was one of the worst in recent history, with a decline of about 5.5 percent for the Dow Jones industrial average and almost 8 percent in the Nasdaq."
“A rally during the last couple of days helped relieve losses. Still, a common Wall Street adage has to be unsettling: "As goes January, so goes the year."
And then, Ms MarksJarvis offers some guidance, using "experts" opinions to clarify what’s transpired and what to expect.
“Because the stock market plunged so sharply early this year, investors have been wondering if this is the beginning of a monster bear market, like late 2007 to early 2009, when the stock market dropped 57 percent. Yet, many analysts say that if the current stock market plunge becomes a bear market, it probably won't be as serious as that terrifying drop because then the financial system was poisoned. Now, banks are considered healthier, although investors do worry about failing oil businesses infecting junk bond market losses. That could make lenders cautious and slow down the economy — one of the problems in 2008.
Additionally, “Some analysts recently have tried to calm investors by explaining that stocks couldn't possibly be headed into a bear market because the economy is not in a recession. They claim that all bear markets happen in recessions, not when the economy is OK.”
However, after the preceding attempt to assuage investor's fears, Ms MarksJarvis goes on to quote Standard & Poor's analyst Sam Stovall, who tracks historical data and provided the following:
“Stovall's research suggests those analysts have the time frame somewhat misinterpreted. Stovall notes that every time there has been a recession in the U.S. since 1948, the stock market plunged months before the recession occurred. A stock market plunge of at least 10 percent predicted trouble coming in the economy. The prediction started on average 7 1/2 months before the start of the recession.
“If you incorporate the stock market decline that occurred before the recession and the decline during the recession, the average drop in stocks has been nearly 30 percent, Stovall said.”
Thus, much like the results of the Iowa caucuses regarding eventual presidential electoral outcomes, as far as certainty goes, “expert’s” guesses at stock market performance are about as good as your average Swami’s Ouija boards.
And then, a friend sent the following this morning:
Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
On Saturday, the New York Times editorial board endorsed Bill’s wife for the presidency, the day after the State Department said for the first time “top secret” material had been sent through Hillary Clinton’s private computer server, and that it would not make public 22 of her emails because they contained highly classified information.”
It was also announced that 18 emails exchanged between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would also be withheld, citing the longstanding practice of preserving presidential communications for future release. The department’s spokesman, John Kirby, said that exchanges did not involve classified information.
What’s most important here is that: “The top secret emails lent credence to criticism by Mrs. Clinton’s rivals in the presidential race of her handling of classified information while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. It is against the law for officials to discuss classified information on unclassified networks used for routine business or on private servers, and the F.B.I. is looking into whether such information was mishandled.”
Therefore, regardless of how willing the New York Times, or any other entity in the major media, continue to overlook the blatant snubbing of the nation’s laws by a favored leftist, this situation is far above their ability to apply their influence. And, as far as voters are concerned, the vast majority of polls indicate that regardless of the Times opinion, both the publication and their presidential choice are rapidly shrinking in appeal continually.
Leading to the ongoing question:Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?
That’s it for today folks.