Nate Silver’s election model is once again being pored over by millions of anxious voters. The gambler turned statistician talks about the race for White House, the risk-takers redefining our culture, and the probability of God
Just how useful is a forecast in a knife-edge election like this one, anyway? Even the insight that it could go either way is useful, Silver argues. “One potential advantage of having a forecast that says … it’s 50/50, is that people should be making their contingency plans, like, right away. It doesn’t mean you need [to stockpile] ammo and peanut butter” – that giggle again – “but it means, you know: what’s your strategy to protect American institutions in the event of a Trump second term? Or, in 2028 [or] 2032, a Trump-like Republican who maybe is more effective than Trump? If I were a liberal donor, for example, I would want to begin funding now … to protect institutions in that eventuality, instead of giving another $100,000 to Kamala Harris, who has more money than she needs.”
And while he fears a Trump win – “There were a lot of guardrails in place last time that prevented complete and utter disaster, but those guardrails have been weakened, right?” – he warns against painting it as an existential threat to democracy, at least as a political strategy. “The notion of basically holding voters hostage in that sense is very unappealing … Biden was like: ‘OK, sure, I may be running for president until I’m 86 and can barely form a complete sentence, but if you don’t vote for me, the country gets it’ – that’s a very unappealing message to swing voters … whereas Harris brings more joyfulness and is obviously a very talented woman”. He worries, though, that she has “retained too many of the Biden people who thought it was a good idea to keep running [him]. I guess she kind of had to.”
My prediction is that if Trump does win, there will be a civil war within the next 4-10 years. Each side will get backing from separate national groups. Except middle eastern countries (with the exceptional of Israel). They'll probably just sit back and watch the US burn. And staying in that state-of-mind, that would have the potential to spark WWIII.
Except middle eastern countries (with the exceptional of Israel). They'll probably just sit back and watch the US burn.
Hope they're cool having an awful lot less money then, the US is one of the main powers propping up the oil industry out there. We stop buying and the market collapses. It's not like Russia is going to step in to buy the surplus, and I doubt China would want to even if they probably can afford it.
Edit: Wow, I am completely wrong as evidenced by people below, I admit I did not look this up before speaking about it. That's my mistake.
All they have to do is sit and wait. The Middle East still produce around 50% of the world's oil. If those countries have proven anything, it's that they're smart and resilient. Someone somewhere is going to want what they have and they could sell it for whatever cost they see fit. All they would have to do is keep their heads down and wait
Oh they'll keep producing just fine. But when demand suddenly drops to half or less of what it was, they're going to run into trouble, and fast. America imports an absolutely ludicrous amount of oil for many purposes. If the country collapses, that supply/demand chain dries up.
Realistically, all the American Mega-Barons that are doing all this oil business will just set up shop in another country. Africa, maybe - plenty of open space and not much regulation out there. But that will take time and investment, time that existing oil supply barons may not have.
They'd probably survive, but I have a hard time seeing all of the Middle East just quietly watching America burn down when we account for probably a solid half of their budget sheets in their most profitable sector.