Ric's Conclusion on the Presidential Election

You're undecided? His evaluation will help.

Ric Edelman: It's Thursday, October 31st. Happy Halloween! And what an appropriate day for it to be the end of our 19-podcast series covering 34 topics affecting this year's presidential election. Here are the 34 topics, just to recap them real quick for you, and I'm going to do this in the order that I covered them over the past several weeks.

First was Israel, followed by national security, defense, geopolitics, Russia, Ukraine, China, Taiwan, North Korea, Iran and nuclear weapons…Space defense and exploration…the Economy, taxes, tariffs, inflation, interest rates in the fed…Federal deficit, federal debt and federal spending…Crypto…Central bank, digital currencies…Exponential technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and large language models...Income gap, the wealth gap, minimum wage, and universal basic income…Jobs, employment, and unemployment…Social security, pensions, and lifetime income… Housing and homeownership…Education, including critical race theory, evolution versus creationism, school vouchers and charter schools…Higher education…Student loans…Abortion, contraceptive freedom, and euthanasia…Healthcare…Medicare, Medicaid and Affordable Care Act…Climate change, environment, drilling, fracking…Energy, nuclear energy, fossil fuels and green energy…Drug addiction, treatment and incarceration…Smoking and vaping… Democracy, voting integrity, Electoral College, campaign finance and corruption, election integrity and gerrymandering…Crime, gang violence, violent crime, guns and incarceration…Death penalty…Judicial reform…Presidential nominations…Regulation…Racism and bigotry… LGBTQ rights and religious freedom, gender, sexual orientation, and transgender…Immigration and border security…Transportation and infrastructure…Unions…Veterans affairs…Character, ethics, morals, and values...and we ended yesterday with our discussion of the vice presidency.

Wow. That's quite a list, rather exhaustive. I don't know about you, but I'm exhausted. I hope that the series of conversations has been helpful to you. It's been really helpful to me. And remember, that's why I did it. It wasn't really for your benefit.

I mean, I'm a finance guy. What do I know about politics? We all have our individual views, don't we? My challenge, as I shared with you throughout this series, is that I have been undecided and I was trying to figure out how to reconcile the problems I was having with both of these candidates in order to reach a decision as to which one of them to vote for.

So, I created this matrix of 34 topics using a model invented by Benjamin Franklin as a decision-making tree to determine not only what are the issues, which of the two candidate’s views do I prefer on each of these issues, how closely do I agree with the candidate's views, and how important is the issue to me? All of us would reach different decisions on that matrix, and that's why I've offered you my Excel spreadsheet as a free tool to help you if you, like me, have been undecided in an effort to figure this all out.

So now here we are, and I've gotten a bunch of comments from listeners on this exercise. Let me just share two of them with you real quickly. This is from Cliff. He's in Huntley, Illinois.

Cliff: “Ric, thanks for providing these assessments of the issues confronting us voters. It is helping me to solidify my own thinking before voting.”

Ric Edelman: And here's from Mark in Delaware.

Mark: “I love your podcast. I'm not an advisor, but I look forward to learning something new every day. This series on the election was an excellent idea. It is helping me to figure out which candidate I want to vote for the least. I really don't want to vote for either one, but your podcasts and decision too, are helping me make a decision. Thanks.”

Ric Edelman: Cliff and Mark, thank you so very much. I really do appreciate your sharing with me that you've appreciated the series and my Excel spreadsheet, to help you in the decision making. I'm glad to see that what it comes down to for me, as this is the last of this series.

And I told you, I would give you a summary of my viewpoints on all of this. To me, this presidential election boils down to a very simple choice. A despicable person versus a person who is incompetent.

I'm sure I've just infuriated everybody with that statement. The Trump supporters are going to be very unhappy. I called him despicable. The Kamala Harris supporters are going to be very unhappy I've just called her incompetent.

But let me, let me just illustrate this for you. A month ago, September 30th, the New York Times editorial board announced its choice. They published, as they do every four years, an editorial announcing their endorsement for president. And they just did it this past month on September 30th. The title of their editorial was “The Only Patriotic Choice”. This editorial was about 2,000 words in length, 27 paragraphs.

Here's what I found fascinating about the editorial. No, it's not the fact that the New York Times endorsed Kamala Harris. That was a given. The New York Times is a liberal publication. It has progressive viewpoints. Not at all surprised that they chose Kamala. In all of the presidential elections that the New York Times has ever announced an endorsement, they have never, unless I'm mistaken, they have never endorsed a Republican.

Anyway, I'm not at all surprised they endorsed Kamala, but here is what I found noteworthy. Of this 2, 000 word, 27 paragraph editorial, Kamala's name was not mentioned until the fourth paragraph. After the New York Times editorial board spent three paragraphs explaining why Donald Trump is morally unfit for office, they wrote in the fourth paragraph the following,

NY Times: “Regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president.”

Ric Edelman: The New York times also wrote the following

NY Times: “Many voters have said they want more details about the Vice President's plans, as well as more unscripted encounters in which she explains her vision and policies. They are right to ask. Given the stakes of this election, Ms. Harris may think that she is running a campaign designed to minimize the risks of an unforced error.

Answering journalists’ questions and offering greater policy detail could court controversy after all, under the belief that being the only viable alternative to Mr. Trump may be enough to bring her to victory. That strategy may ultimately prove winning, but it's a disservice to the American people and to her own record. And leaving the public with a sense that she is being shielded from tough questions, as Mr. Biden has been, could backfire by undermining her core argument that a capable new generation stands ready to take the reins of power.”

Ric Edelman: The New York times also wrote this.

NY Times: “She may not be the perfect candidate for every voter, especially those who are frustrated and angry about our government's failures to fix what's broken, from our immigration system to public schools to housing costs to gun violence.”

Ric Edelman: The bottom line is this. Of the 27 paragraphs, 17 of them were about Donald Trump. Kamala Harris was lauded in only six of the 27 paragraphs. The New York Times editorial, in fact, was not a vote for Harris. It was, like it is for so many Americans, a vote against Trump.

Just look at the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. Both of them chose not to endorse anyone. Just like the Teamsters union chose not to make an endorsement. In the end, the New York Times is so aghast at Donald Trump, they're willing to say anything to stop him from being elected. Some people are so aghast at the idea of Donald Trump returning to the White House, that psychologists have even given this a name.

They are calling it Trump Derangement Syndrome. People are getting so worked up about Donald Trump, both politically and politically, negative and positive, that a lot of people are saying some pretty crazy things. And oh, by the way, this, this Trump Derangement Syndrome is not new. The phrase was first coined back 2003 as Bush Derangement Syndrome.  The psychologist who came up with it called it a general hysteria that produces an inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and signs of psychic pathology, a hatred of the man that is so intense it impairs your judgment.

And if you want a poster child for this Look no further than Liz Cheney. She's a lifelong conservative. She opposes abortion, big government, and high taxes. She supports the oil industry and guns. But suddenly, she's voting for a far-left liberal Democrat who opposes everything she has stood for, for her whole career. Simply and solely because she thinks Donald Trump is a fascist?  

That is Trump Derangement Syndrome. There's no question that people suffering from this illness are making extreme comments. And I'm not just talking about people who hate Donald Trump. A lot of people who love Donald Trump are deranged, too.

Lots of his supporters are defending him against things that are frankly indefensible. Like rape and assault. Like lying on federal disclosure documents. Like stashing top secret files. So, we're finding that there are people on both sides who are, I hate to say it, deranged.

A lot of this, actually I think all of this, is Trump's own fault. His own statements are the cause of all this. Trump has said he'll weaponize the Justice Department to throw his political opponents in jail. He has said he won't hire anyone who says the 2020 election wasn't stolen. He has said that he'll deport 10 million undocumented workers, and that doing so will be, in his words, “bloody”.  He has said he'll allow vigilantes to fight crime. He has said that if the United States is attacked, he'll let the military strike foreign civilian targets. He has said that if your state goes for Kamala, FEMA won't show up at the next natural disaster. He has said that the only public schools that will get federal money will be the ones that teach what he wants them to teach ideologically. And he has said that he will abandon U. S. allies.

All those statements have created a lot of concern for millions of voters. It's gotten to the point that some people are even comparing him to Adolf Hitler. They're wringing their hands that Donald Trump will end democracy in the U.S.

I'm not about to sit here trying to convince you that Donald Trump isn't a fascist. He may very well be. What do I know? But he was in office for four years, and I didn't see any fascism then. Or at least nothing I haven't seen from some other presidents. So, I'm not sure why so many people are so certain that he's going to be a fascist the next time around if he were to be elected again.

Yet a lot of people are getting themselves all worked up about this, and they're convincing themselves of two things. Two things, not just one, and this is really, really important. The first thing is that anti-Trump voters, from Liz Cheney to the New York Times editorial board, to tens of millions of people, these anti-Trump voters have convinced themselves that Donald Trump is a fascist who will end democracy, that he'll become a dictator for life, and that he will kill or imprison or expel from America all of his political enemies.

Okay, fine. I won't try to persuade you that none of that is true. I mean, it very well may be true. I don't know. You could very well be right. He certainly has given us enough fuel for that fire to contemplate it. I mean I can certainly see why you're worried if you're among those who are. Like I said, he's made a lot of incendiary comments during this campaign, but here's the thing, the fact that he's made all of these incendiary comments is only the first thing. Remember I said there were two things here. That's the first thing.

Here's the second thing, even if you believe that Donald Trump is a fascist, he's going to be a dictator, even if that proves true and correct, why are you so certain that when he does try to throw out the law and become a dictator that he'll be able to do that?

What, our system of checks and balances will suddenly, instantly not exist? It'll all evaporate? His cabinet will sit idly by? The House of Representatives and the U. S. Senate will disappear? The 50 state governors and the 50 state legislatures, each with two chambers, will somehow simultaneously cease to exist?

And ultimately, unintentionally? Draconianly? No single individual -- and I hate to say this, please forgive me for even mentioning it -- no single individual will simply take him out. It doesn't even have to be some crazy lunatic that tries to kill Trump. Hell, three have already tried. But what about our intelligence agencies? The CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the entire military, all the way to the Joint Chiefs? No one who's witnessing our president turn into Hitler is going to stop him? Seriously?

Let's remember, of our 46 presidents, people tried to kill 16 of them, and they succeeded four times. Bobby was killed before he even won. George Wallace was shot during his campaign, too. Trump has already survived three assassination attempts. You really think he's not going to get taken out by the Cabinet, or the Congress, or the courts, or the states? Or, literally, by some wacko, if he starts actually grabbing power like Adolf Hitler?

All I can say is that if Trump is elected, and he does start to emulate Hitler, and if nobody does anything to stop it, Well then, frankly, we'll deserve what happens to us. I simply, not for a minute, do I believe that this catastrophic circumstance will occur. In fact, let me pause right there on that word, catastrophic.

You know, in the financial planning world, when we come upon a client, who is scared to death that their investments are about to fall to zero, we call this catastrophizing bias. Whenever there's a market crash, the Crash of 87, the.com bubble bursting in 2001, 9/11, the credit crisis of 2007, the pandemic. We'd always inevitably get some client who would become convinced that the world's coming to an end. They'd be all worked-up that the stock market's going to zero and their money would be gone. It's like the person is saying in the middle of a hurricane, it's never gonna stop raining. Hey, it might be a big storm, but it'll reach its end, and we'll recover.

So, what we would always do is we'd help our clients focus. Instead of letting them make a decision based on some far-fetched, extreme fear that is ridiculously unrealistic, we'd show them that, hey, if the stock market did indeed go to zero, them having money in the bank wouldn't really make any difference. Because if the stock market didn't exist anymore, then the banking system wouldn't exist anymore either. Everybody, everywhere would be broke. There'd be no food in the stores, even if they did have any money, there wouldn't be anything to buy.

So, instead of worrying about something so far-fetched as a permanent market collapse, let's focus on things that are far more likely to occur. Things that really will have an impact like inflation and interest rates and taxes and liquidity. I want to do the same thing here with this election. Instead of all this hand-wringing about Donald Trump catastrophically becoming a dictator, let's look at what's far more likely for him to get away with if he is elected.  And let's look at what Kamala Harris is far more likely to get away with if she's elected.

So, that means we've got to look at their policy positions and decide on each of these 34 topics…who do we agree with? And then we have to ask ourselves, how strongly do we agree with them? And finally, how important is this topic to us? 

For some people, the economy is the number one issue. For others, it's immigration. For others, it's abortion. For others, it's Israel. And so on. That's what my Excel spreadsheet is all about, to help you quantify these issues. You can, yes, still download it today, right now, link is in the show notes.

And then you got to do one more thing. You've got to set the issues aside after you have gone through all of the issues, deciding what's important to you, who do you like, and how much do you like what they say about it. You’ve got to set all that aside and look at character. If the character of both candidates is not a big concern to you, then you can ignore character, focus on the policies.

If character is a big concern, now you've got a decision to make. Which is more important, the character or the policies? Each of us are going to reach our own decision for all of this. And yes, finally, now that we have completed our journey over these 19 podcasts about these 34 topics, I've made my choice, and I can live with it.

And Stephanie from Oregon sent me an email that describes perfectly what I'm going to do on Tuesday,

Stephanie:  “Dear Ric. Thank you for the highly informative series on our presidential candidates. Your thoughtful comments have helped shape my opinions of both. Like you, I cannot enthusiastically support either candidate for many reasons you have discussed.

After listening to you, I have decided that I think it would be best for our country if the majority in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives is not from the same party as our next president. Having a divided government should mean fewer of the next president's extreme proposals will be passed, and it would encourage collaboration and compromise. When I vote next week, I plan to choose the congressional candidate running in my district who is not from the same party as whoever I believe will occupy the White House next.”

Ric Edelman: Stephanie, I'm going to do the exact same thing. I am so unhappy with both of these candidates and frankly, with both of these parties right now that my hope is that over the next four years, nothing gets done.

I'd rather tread water and get to the 2028 election, than see extreme laws passed and have half the country certain to hate them. I hope that in 2028, we get two new candidates who are truly qualified to be President of the United States, because neither of these two are.

And maybe that's why Henry from Massachusetts, Michael, and Paul from New Jersey wrote to me what they wrote. Here are their three comments.

Henry: “Good morning, Ric. I too have no idea for whom I will vote in the presidential election. For exactly the reasons that you have discussed, we need a third party.”

Michael: “ I understand that you are flummoxed and are undecided at this point. You raise valid points on why not to vote for either of the two major party candidates. What if you were to vote for a third-party candidate? Maybe your conscience would be clear.”

Paul: “I agree with you that the candidates, each in their own way, are awful. Whichever one of them wins this election will really be a four-year test for us. Their running mates, the likely heirs in 2028, aren't very inspiring either. I have given this stuff a lot of thought and have decided to simply vote my conscience this year. Therefore, I'm writing in a candidate, not voting for either Trump or Harris.”

Ric Edelman: These three are not alone. There are a lot of folks who are going to be voting for a third party candidate or a write-in candidate. I just hope you don't waste your time by saying Donald Duck.

But I guess the very best email of all the very many emails that I have received over these past few weeks, the very best email of all that I've received has come from Joe. I received it yesterday.

Joe: “Ric, let me know when you are done with all this election nonsense and get back to finance and crypto. Until then, automatic delete.”

Ric Edelman: Well, Joe, you'll be happy to know that this is the last podcast on all of this election nonsense. Tomorrow, we get back to finance and crypto. And I've got a big announcement for you tomorrow, too. So, I hope you'll join me for that. Thank you for joining me for this series on the presidential election.

Well, not you, Joe. Everyone else. Thank you.

If you like what you're hearing, be sure to follow and subscribe to the show, wherever you get your podcasts, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and remember leave a review on Apple podcasts. I read them all. Never miss an episode of The Truth About Your Future. Follow and subscribe on your favorite podcast app.  

I'll see you tomorrow.

-----

Subscribe to podcast updates: https://form.jotform.com/223614751580152 

Ask Ric: https://www.thetayf.com/pages/ask-ric 

-----  

Links from today’s show:  

Click here for Ric's worksheet to help you evaluate the candidates

The 34 Issues of Election 2024 – The Daily Podcasts https://thetayf.com/blogs/this-weeks-stories/tagged/election-2024

Kamala Harris Official Campaign Website Policy Page: https://www.kamalaharris.com/issues/

Donald Trump Official Campaign Website Policy Page: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform

11/13 Webinar - An Innovative Way to Generate Income in a World of Declining Rates: https://www.thetayf.com/pages/november-13-2024-an-innovative-way-to-generate-income

10/9 Webinar Replay- Crypto for RIAs: Yield, Staking, Lending and Custody. What’s beyond the ETFs? https://dacfp.com/events/crypto-for-rias-yield-staking-lending-and-custody-whats-beyond-the-etfs/

Certified in Blockchain and Digital Assets including Crypto Taxation Course/Webinar: https://dacfp.com/certification/

-----  

Follow Ric on social media:  

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RicEdelman

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ric_edelman/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ricedelman/

X: https://twitter.com/ricedelman

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@RicEdelman

-----  

Brought to you by:  

Invesco QQQ: https://www.invesco.com/qqq-etf/en/home.html

State Street Global Advisors: https://www.ssga.com/us/en/intermediary/etfs/capabilities/spdr-core-equity-etfs/spy-sp-500/cornerstones

Schwab: https://www.schwab.com/

TAYF Disclosure page: https://www.thetayf.com/pages/sponsorship-disclosure-fee