From the NYT's running commentary:

Michael S. SchmidtWashington Correspondent
Cruz says that half the country thinks the election is rigged. I wonder if he’s going to point out that the person with the largest bullhorn in the country (the president) has pushed this specious claim.

1:51 PM ET

——————————-

Sad really.  Americans are stupid and easy to manipulate.  It is becoming a FACT. 

In passing, I agree that American economic and political elites should enjoy an exclusive monopoly on misleading and manipulating American citizens.   

.....  Just like men of great stature should be able to sexually assault and rape women of their choice.  

Biden to name judge Merrick Garland as attorney general

 rgio wrote:
 
Well, markets also tend to prefer lame duck presidents.   I see markets as a short-term voting machine by folks who seek to increase private wealth levels and are not concerned about longer-term social outcomes. A Democratic sweep of these two seats may not be well received by all.  

Higher government spending also comes with larger deficits and debts.   

I am sure that once the Biden regime is in full swing that Republicans will re-discover fiscal conservatism (the rhetoric at the least) and implicitly renounce their current Marxist-Keynesian fiscal policy position.

 westslope wrote:
 
If we're using history as a proxy, then be careful about over-exuberance following a pandemic.

Trump's weaknesses have resulted in the consolidation of industries and financial windfalls for the largest players (represented in the Dow/Nasdaq).  The US has been printing money, and as you (sorta) point out, states and municipal governments have been running at a deficit to cover COVID costs and lost revenues (increasing gas taxes to cover lost toll revenue for example). The stock markets are up in 2020 because of the pandemic, not in spite of it.  Higher government spending comes from higher taxes, and increasing taxes never drives the stock market higher.

Is prior Democratic Presidency financial performance causation or correlation?  It appears very likely the Senate will flip, and futures are flat.

In 3 years, I'm willing to bet that all you'll hear from the Republican candidates is how much better the markets did under Trump than Biden.  Joe's inheriting a bubble, not a rocketship.

 rgio wrote:
 
For a bunch of reasons.   

+ Historic.  Markets like Democratic presidents more than Republican presidents.  Stylized fact with some support in peer-reviewed journals.

+  The out-going president has been an economic disaster on numerous fronts.   Bottom-line is that conflict is not good for business.  Markets might like the Marxist Keynesian tax cuts for a short period but now in the context of the pandemic it looks so careless, so reckless.  

+  Trump is an atrocious risk manager when it comes to broad social, national, economic, security risks.  Once the perception settles in that he threatens longer-term stability and growth, anybody will look better than Trump.  Not meaning to demean the very real talents and useful experience of Joe Biden.

+  A cyber buddy once said that Biden is the pussycat of American politics.  This guy is the deal maker.  He's the real deal.   Calm, order, stability, people sitting down, this is what the street needs and I believe wants at this point.

+  There is broad consensus among economists that fiscal spending should go on a war-like footing to cope with the pandemic.    Cutting corners for some high-risk short-term growth is just plain dangerous.  

+  More federal government spending, the more likely the US dollar will continue to decline in relative value.   That is a good thing for US exporters and their workers.  Recall that market values are measured in US dollars.  

Moreover, I fully expect A Democratic sweep to energize energy markets, in particular oil markets.   In resource markets, 'less' is always 'more'.  If Biden puts some northern and offshore back into no-exploitation reserves, bans fracking on federal lands (where in passing fracking would least impact people....), restrict flaring, production growth will slow and consequently prices should increase.

That would be positive for the US oil&gas sector where financial discipline and honesty has been sorely lacking.    This sector may have averaged negative risk-adjusted returns to capital over the past decade.  Crazy.

+  In passing, it is odd how the USA is set up to allow municipalities and states to risk manage public finances.  Huh?   Never mind.  In the meantime, many could use a cash injection.  A Democratic-controlled Senate would make sure that would happen.  It is critical to keep public workers on the payroll and have the flexibility to hire more specialists as required.

 haresfur wrote:
 

With the exception of Reagan and Carter, the economy in general shows greater strides/improvement under democrats. (Because the GOP screw it up so badly before they hand it off.)

Ossoff now with a 94 percent chance to win. The fundamental G.O.P. problem: Its vote is basically exhausted. Ossoff is favored to win the remaining vote by 36 points (he needs to win by 26 to prevail).

See the forecast

Our estimates show Warnock with a greater than 95 percent chance to win. Loeffler has largely exhausted her vote, under reasonable assumptions.

(...)

“If they win, I’ll get no credit,” Trump predicted of Republicans last night. “If they lose, they’re gonna blame Trump.” Given Georgia’s political shift in the Trump era, he’s probably onto something.

 rgio wrote:
 
Historically, democrats have been better for business

 westslope wrote:
 
Because the Biden tax plan can be implemented more broadly and quickly, or because the Dems will give out more money (starting with the $2,000 relief checks)?

Why do you expect higher markets? 

 westslope wrote:
 
An appropriate legacy for the man who craves wins, along with the single term.

Vacuous prediction:   The Republicans win at least one Senate seat.

If, and I mean, truly if, the Democrats sweep both seats, then I would expect markets to skyrocket higher after definitive results are announced.  

Early results show the Democratic candidates in the lead in the Georgia Senate seat runoffs.  40% of votes counted.  Warnock +9, Ossoff +8

https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

Apparently Democrats are preparing garlands with much love to gift out-going President Trump; he has been so helpful.   I would not be surprised if some Republicans start saying that Trump was working for the Democrats all along.  

A radical agenda is possible with control of the Senate.  

Trump Still Says He Won. What Happens Next?
A republic works only when the losers of elections accept the results and the legitimacy of their opponents.

The Republican effort to derail Congress’s electoral vote count on Wednesday will fail, and President-elect Joe Biden will be sworn in at noon on Jan. 20, as the Constitution commands. What will persist, however, is an existential crisis: What to do about a political party that is no longer committed to representative democracy?

(...)

The first time, Republicans in Congress were more than happy to let him get away with it — all Senate Republicans but one voted to acquit Mr. Trump of the two articles of impeachment approved by the House of Representatives. Susan Collins of Maine defended her not guilty vote by claiming that the president had learned “a pretty big lesson.” She pointed out that his extortion effort had earned him rebukes from both Democrats and Republicans. “I believe that he will be much more cautious in the future,” she said.

Ms. Collins was right about the first part: Mr. Trump did learn a pretty big lesson. He learned that he can break the law and undermine democracy with impunity. He learned that he can do the political equivalent of shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, and he won’t lose the support of Republicans. So, naturally, he pulled the trigger again.

Another contest is underway — between reality and fantasy, as Trump seeks to sow doubts about Georgia’s election system. State officials are rebutting his charges in real time.

 rgio wrote:
 
rgio, 

Be nice to the term 'theory'.     Even if most people strictly speaking mean 'hypothesis' when they use the word 'theory'.  

These accusations of election fraud are not 'theory', they are baseless assertions.  

Apparently somebody who was both competent and famous once said:  

"Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth"

 buddy wrote:
 

Cruz has an extraordinary talent for alienating people, though. He is openly the most hated Senator within the chamber. I doubt he'll be able to win the Trump base over as well. People like/love Trump because he's blunt, vicious and self-assured. He can lie all day and his base never calls him on it. Cruz doesn't have that Reality Distortion Bubble or the Teflon skin. 

Tom Cotton, Senator of Arkansas, may be the next prick up. 

 buddy wrote:

The presidential election process follows a typical cycle:

• Spring of the year before an election – Candidates announce their intentions to run.
• Summer of the year before an election through spring of the election year – Primary and caucus debates take place.
• January to June of election year – States and parties hold primaries and caucuses.
• July to early September – Parties hold nominating conventions to choose their candidates.
• September and October – Candidates participate in presidential debates.
• Early November – Election Day
• December – Electors cast their votes in the Electoral College.
• Early January of the next calendar year – Congress counts the electoral votes.
• January 20 – Inauguration Day

 buddy wrote: 
Hopefully it will get him the hell out of Texas.

 buddy wrote:
 
On the bright side, Cruz is more than willing to flip-flop on his own bullshit so maybe he will flop to the marginally better

 R_P wrote:
 
I wish he had drawn trump out to clarify the request. Like, "So you want me to make up some ballots to count, right?"