Here’s something interesting about the Iowa caucuses. According to the Des Moines Register the turnouts were robust, especially for the Republican caucuses:
Iowa’s 2016 caucus attendance was a doozy.
Republicans counted more than 180,000 caucusgoers, topping their 2012 attendance record of 121,503 by an estimated 60,000 people.
And while Democratic numbers weren’t completely tallied at the time of this publication, all indications pointed to a robust performance, although not likely to top the roughly 240,000 total who showed up in 2008 to vote for a Democratic rock-star field led by Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.
Not only does that go against the prevailing wisdom that high turnout favored Trump, it also calls into question the suggestion that the growth in minorities in Iowa would lead to a bigger Democratic turnout.
How’s this for an explanation? Some number of the Trump turnout were actually disaffected non-progressive Democrats?
Alternatively, Trump helped turn our more people both for _and_ against him. That last Des Moines Register poll of likely Republican-caucus-goers, had the following unfavorability ratings in Iowa:
Jeb Bush: 53%
Sarah Palin: 50%
Michael Bloomberg: 50%
Donald Trump: 47%
Chris Christie: 44%
Rand Paul: 41%
Ted Cruz: 28%
Ben Carson: 22%
Marco Rubio: 21%
Trump’s unfavorability was at 35% in August among likely Republican caucus-goers. His disparagement of other Republican candidates has either made him less popular (OK to attack Jeb though), or the universe of caucus-goers expanded.
Note: I think Iowa probably resembles the Republican primaries far better than the Democrats. It has the religious, ultraconservative element in the west and rural areas, it has the business/suburban Republicans around Des Moines and the Quad Cities, and it has the working class / white ethnics in the east.
If so, it makes the Des Moines Register’s record even more bizarre. The Register has never endorsed the Republican candidate who went on to win the caucus and has always endorsed the candidate that went on to win on the Democratic side.
I wonder if Iowa and New Hampshire will be allowed to maintain their positions in the process on the next go-round. It’s beginning to dawn on people that they are jointly the White Rustic Winnowers. Give the job to Ohio and North Carolina. The ambient IQ of Iowa is about 75 and New Hampshire is where you live if you want to leach off Boston without paying the taxes, sort of like Wilmette is to Chicago.
“….New Hampshire is where you live if you want to leach off Boston without paying the taxes, sort of like Wilmette is to Chicago.”
That’s funny, Wilmette is in the same county as Chicago, for property taxes on a per $100K basis. Obviously pays the same state income taxes and 10% sales tax. Giving allowance for geographical ignorance, the collar counties of Will, DuPage and Lake all have had higher property tax rates. We shall see what Rahm’s latest tax and spend move do.
New Hampshire, particularly southern New Hampshire, is just full of tax refugees from Massachusetts. They’re sometimes characterized as libertarians but that doesn’t really cover it. They don’t have a problem with activist government. They have a problem paying for activist government personally.
Racially Illinois is the state that looks most like the United States as a whole. Economically Pennsylvania is.
Dave:
Doesn’t Illinois have enough trouble without a quadrennial plague of politicians?
Racially Illinois is the state that looks most like the United States as a whole. Economically Pennsylvania is.
Pick Florida, or California, for what America is going to look like in another ten years.
God damned GWB. I wonder what Hillary or Bernie will have to say about this obvious mismanagement by Bush.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-02/liar-loans-are-back-2007-housing-bubble-redux
God damned GWB. I wonder what Hillary or Bernie will have to say about this obvious mismanagement by Bush.
That if he hadn’t shown everyone how cool they were back in the aughts no one would be using them now?
What’s interesting to me, ice, is that it’s the same products and credit posture, but different players. Hard to slough it off on “greedy banks.” And of course the political players have changed, but the political goal is the same.
It all starts with borrowers and the notion of a free lunch.
Speaking of a free lunch, and the chickens coming home to roost..
I don’t know who has published this, but apparently a report is circulating here in Chicago officially declaring the Chicago Public schools as salvageable only by bankruptcy. In fact, payroll may be in jeopardy within a couple weeks. For those of you not familiar with corporate financial extremis, it’s usually a payroll shortfall that brings posturing to a head.
From the ZeroHedge link (third paragraph):
The problem originates not with the borrower. The problem originates with the investor. This is straight from ZeroHedge, and the person who provided the link is either too stupid to understand what the post is about or is just too stupid.
This post validates exactly what I have posited over the years, and it was provided by the person who has denied the validity of my argument.
For those interested, you should note that Alt-A loans do require documentation, but alternate documentation is acceptable. A high credit score is required which eliminates sub-prime, and other assets would be an acceptable alternative. These loans were abused, but they are a legitimate and well established form of mortgage. Furthermore, they did not begin to default at outstanding rates until after sub-prime began collapsing.
I would suggest anybody providing supporting documentation might want to actually read and understand what you are supplying.
“I would suggest anybody providing supporting documentation might want to actually read and understand what you are supplying.”
Yes, you should, Tasty.
@Drew
You must be retarded. The entire article is about Wall Street initiating the loan scan not borrowers. It totally refutes your entire thesis, and you are too stupid to realize it. Please, quote anything that supports something you say.
If anybody should have provided the link, it would be @steve, but unless he is now agreeing with many of their positions, I would crucify him.
It all starts with borrowers and the notion of a free lunch.
No lenders, no borrowers. The biggest qualitative difference between the two is that the lenders are expected to be better educated, and indeed even smarter, about what they are doing.