But... But... 2016!!! One poll and six pundits got it right in 2016. What are they saying in 2020?

They got it right in 2016. That wast then. This is now.

Six months after the election and three months into President Donald Trump's first term, the Dividist was still trying to figure out what happened. This blog was lying fallow, but as he said then: "With the passage of time, and with judicious use of third person plural, the Dividist has created enough distance from the election to get back to work and begin posting again." And with that, he selected among those few in the punditocracy who - unlike the Dividist - got it right and predicted that Donald Trump would win the Presidency. It was his first post after the 2016 election. The thesis was to "listen to a few notables who got it right... listen to what they said before the election and what they've said since."

Good advice then. Good advice now. We are now less than two months from the election to determine whether President Trump will serve a second term or if he will be replaced by Joe Biden. Conventional wisdom informs us that Labor Day is when most Americans start paying attention to the election. A good time to close the loop, go back, look at the sources who got it right then and see what they are saying now. We'll start with the polls.

- Cognitive Madisonianism Part Deux - Divided government, protecting the filibuster, and voting for hypocrites.

 Biden Shrugged  

The 2016 presidential election stunned pundits and voters alike (including the Dividist). But, as surprising as the electoral victory of Donald Trump was in 2016, a case can be made that the 2016 Senate election results were even more shocking. And therein lies a lesson for 2020.

Four years ago, The Dividist shared his thoughts on the 2016 election in a post entitled "Cognitive Madisonianism, splitting tickets, the 2016 Senate race, and why American voters are smarter than pundits and political scientists."

The Dividist was enthralled to discover the phrase "Congnitive Madisonianism" and eager to put it to use. As he explained then, it is a political science term for the simple concept that American voters, in their collective wisdom, prefer and vote for divided government. That concept being the raison d'etre for this blog, the reader can appreciate the Dividist's enthusiasm.

In that post we assessed the current state of the election and made some predictions about the likelihood of maintaining our happily divided government across the new year:

"In 2016 the GOP will keep the House majority, the Democrats will keep the Executive branch and our government will stay happily divided regardless of what happens in the Senate. The dividist voting heuristic strives to Keep It Simple Stupid and walk the simplest path of least resistance to keeping the government divided. In 2016, that path is to vote Clinton for President (or - at the least - not vote for Trump), and vote to reelect your Republican Congressman. For the Senate - vote your conscience."

In 2016, the Dividist could see a rationale to vote for either party gaining majority control in the Senate:

"The best dividist reason to support a Democratic Senate is based on the fear that some "Black Swan", "October surprise" event (e-mails, Wikileaks, Clinton Foundation, Trump quitting the race, etc) will derail the Clinton campaign juggernaut sufficiently to let the GOP nominee be elected President.  A Democratic Senate is a backstop to prevent Unified One Party Republican Rule.

The best dividist reason to support a Republican Senate is based on moderating Supreme Court picks. If the Democrats win the Senate there is a real possibility they will implement a "Nuclear Option" rule change for Supreme Court nominees. That means a Clinton Presidency and Democratic Senate could steamroll a GOP minority and confirm anyone Clinton nominates for the Supreme Court. They might even withdraw Garland to nominate and confirm a more reliably liberal judge.

Given the continuing catastrophe of the Trump campaign, the Dividist thinks hoping for a GOP Senate and moderation of Clinton picks for the Supreme Court is the better choice."

You win some. You lose some. For a current comparison, our 2020 prediction is that the Democrats will keep the House majority, Joe Biden and the Democrats will win the Executive Branch, and the best way to keep the government divided will be for the GOP to hold a slim Senate majority. But, as in 2016, the outcome of the Senate races in 2020 are very much in doubt.

That Was Then. This Is Now.

Remember the bad old days of divided government?

We're now six months into One Party Rule - Republican Unified Government.

Hey! Remember all the social and mainstream media cries, lamentations, rending of garments and gnashing teeth about gridlock, divided government and partisan obstruction over the last six years? Guessing everyone is now enjoying our brand spanking new unified government! What? No? Huh.

Look, the Dividist is not one to say "I told you so..." Oh wait. Yes he is...

Americans may have a short memory, but we are once again learning to appreciate the finer points of a politically divided government. It's encouraging to see my fellow citizens coming to that realization much sooner than during the early years of unified government under either Republican Bush or Democratic Obama administrations.

Perhaps this is a good time to step away from the day-to-day West Wing tweet-storm / soap opera and consider some recent thoughtful essays on the nature and benefits of divided government.

Funny, you don't look libertarianish.

 Wherein the Dividist "buries the lede" so deep no one will ever find it.  

 Lady Liberty comments on Lee Drutman Voter Study Group Analysis 

On Sunday, Fareed Zakaria invoked the recent Lee Drutman Voter Study Group (VSG) analysis of the 2016 election.  His opening monologue summarized and repeated the conclusion of his recent Washington Post guest editorial.

The VSG study has become something of a Rorschach Test among the punditocracy. Data on 2016 voter attitudes are distilled into multi-dimensional charts with - sometimes conflicting - analysis of what it all mean. That leaves a lot of room for any good ideologue to find a nugget that will confirm their bias about the election.

Six pundits and one poll that got the election right and what they've said since - seriously & literally.

 They got it right. 

Let's get this out of the way: The Dividist got the 2016 Presidential election wrong. It is not unexpected for the Dividist to advocate for a continuing divided government state and vote. That is, after all, the raison d'etre for this blog. But the Dividist went beyond advocacy in 2016. We confidently predicted that we would continue to see a divided government in 2017 and into the foreseeable future. The Dividist even considered declaring victory and shuttering this blog post-election. We fantasized about triumphantly proclaiming "Our job here is done".  Yeah, that didn't happen. We now have One Party Republican Rule, a Unified Government and the Dividist has work to do.

With the passage of time, and with judicious use of Third Person Plural, the Dividist has created enough distance from the election to get back to work and begin posting again.

Misery loves company. Company is comforting. Who else got it wrong? Besides the Dividist, pretty much everybody:

 They got it wrong. 

The reader may recall that in the closing days of the election the most respected polling analysts in the country were fighting flame wars over whether Clinton had a 71%, 85% or 99% chance of being our next President. In case you didn't notice, she finished with a 0% chance of becoming President. We'll let Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball represent all the failed pundits, pollsters and prognosticators with this straightforward Mea Maxima Culpa:

"We heard for months from many of you, saying that we were underestimating the size of a potential hidden Trump vote and his ability to win. We didn’t believe it, and we were wrong. The Crystal Ball is shattered. We’ll pick up the pieces starting next week as we try to unpack what happened in this election, where there was so much dramatic change from just four years ago. We have a lot to learn, and we must make sure the Crystal Ball never has another year like this. This team expects more of itself, and we apologize to our readers for our errors."

Credit where it is due. Not everybody got it wrong. There were more than a few voices from across the political spectrum that saw the writing on the wall. Those of us who "knew" Trump was going to lose either dismissed or laughed at them when we should have listened. So let us listen to a few notables who got it right. Let's listen to what they said before the election and what they've said since.

Just Vote Dividist - 2016 Election Edition

 Choose Wisely 

Welcome to the sixth election eve "Just Vote Dividist" post. This blog was started in 2006 to advocate a divided government voting heuristic.  In this post we suggest a specific divided government vote for the 2016 election.

In light of the media angst surrounding our presidential choices this cycle, we'll begin by repeating one critically important and almost universally overlooked point. The President of the United States is not the government of the United States. The President of the United States is not even necessarily the leader of the government of the United States.

We're Not Electing a President -  We're Electing a Government
The executive is one of three co-equal branches of government. The government of the United States is led by the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader representing their respective democratic institutions, in concert with the President of the United States. The personalities, interpersonal relationships, communication skills, ideological motivation, partisan loyalties, personal ambitions, institutional obligations and dynamic interactions between those three leaders determine the domestic policy and international posture that governs the United States.

The President is also the leader of a political party. When we have a unified one party government, the President may function as the leader of of the United States government if the president's party demonstrate sufficient partisan discipline. When we have a divided government, leadership of the United States government is just as likely to reside in the Congress as it is in the Executive branch. We'll come back to this point, but first some context to explain why divided government is good for us.

The Haunting Specter of Divided Government

It happens every election year. As the Halloween electoral landscape comes into focus, Republicans and Democrats stake out their positions on the prospect for a divided federal government. The usual partisan hypocrisy abides. Partisans who see an opportunity for Unified One Party Rule will decry the evils of divided government. Partisans who fear their party being shut out of power will extol the virtues of checks, balances, and the restraint on power found in a politically divided government. Neither party exhibits any shame when flip-flopping their feelings about divided government from one cycle to the next.

This year there is less partisan clarity about the prospects of either party regaining One Party Rule than is usually apparent this late in the election cycle. Some of this is fueled by delusions of grandeur on the part of Democrats indulging in Nancy Pelosi's bi-annual fantasy of retaking the House majority (see 2014, 2012 & 2010 prognostications of the Once And Never Again Speaker).

The Dividist staked out a position on the 2016 election in a pre-election post shortly before the 2014 midterms ...

"In 2016 Democrats will enjoy many of the structural advantages that favor Republicans in 2014. There is a high probability that a Republican majority in the Senate will not last beyond the 2016 election. If we go into that election with Republicans in majority control of both legislative branches, it makes the divided government vote easy to determine. There will be a greater risk of Single Party Republican Rule, so the 2016 Dividist vote will be for the Democratic candidate for president. A strong Republican presidential candidate could have the coattails to retain the Senate and usher in another era of One Party Republican rule. Even with a strong Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, the Republicans will be likely to retain the House and we get divided government for another 2 to 4 years. QED ... And yes, under those circumstances, the Dividist will gladly support and vote for Hillary Clinton for her third term as President."

 ... and never looked back. Two years later, nothing significant has changed. The Republican House majority is a lock, the Senate is a coin flip, and Hillary Clinton is poised to begin her 3rd term as President of the United States.

Under these circumstances, we would normally expect Democrats to be waxing eloquently on the virtues of divided government. We would expect Republicans to be fear-mongering the prospect of gridlocked government unable to deal with the dire threats posed to the American way of life by the Democratic Party. To some extent, this is exactly what is happening. But, like in so many aspects of this election cycle, Donald Trump changes the game. So instead, we now see principled Republicans and libertarians arguing against voting for Trump, preferring a vote for a Clinton presidency shackled by a divided government.  And we see some deluded Democrats arguing for an implausible return to One Party Democratic Rule hoping that Trump blowback will nationalize the House elections in their favor. In this case, it is the principled Republicans who are grounded in electoral reality.

Investors Love Divided Government - Algo Enhanced 2016 Edition -

UPDATED: 02-Nov-2016 

 Algos For Hillary 

So this happened. Last week the stock market was percolating along with moderate gains on the back of positive economic news and earnings results. Then, on Friday (28-Oct-2016) FBI director James Comey released a letter to Congress indicating FBI investigators found additional Clinton private server e-mails. The new e-mails may or may not have any relevance to his prior testimony but, in an abundance of caution, Comey informed Congress. The DJ Industrial average immediately dropped almost 200 points. 

This NPR story was typical of business media coverage: "The Stock Market Stumbles After Friday's Clinton Email News."

"Around the time that the email news broke, the Dow Jones industrial average plummeted from a peak of 18,255 to a trough of 18,097. That's not quite 1 percent, but the sharp drop, albeit small, is a sign of a broader storyline that has persisted through this election: that investors are scared of a Trump presidency."

Partisan bluster aside, after it became apparent that breathless mainstream and social media reporting was less than meets the eye or that can be supported from the actual content of Comey's letter, the market recovered most of the midday losses.

 CNBC "Closing Bell" wraps it up:

Stunning Gallup Poll Finds Voter Preference For Divided Government Slipping vs. Council Of Elrond

Gallup runs this poll every election cycle and every time the Dividist must explain why there is far less than meets the eye in any conclusion based on this poll. The headline conclusion in the 2016 edition of this Gallup Poll is "In U.S., Preference for Divided Government Lowest in 15 Years":

"STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• 20% of Americans say they want divided government

• Fewer Republicans want divided government now than four years ago

• Fewer Democrats want the same party to control Congress than four years ago

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- One in five Americans believe it is best for the president to be from one political party and for Congress to be controlled by another, the lowest level of public support for divided government in Gallup's 15-year trend. The remainder are evenly divided between those who favor one party controlling both the presidency and Congress (36%) and those saying it makes no difference how political power is allocated (36%)."

I am sympathetic to their plight. Gallup's clear intent is to use the same poll question year after year in order to divine trends over many election cycles. To do that, they must ask the identical question every time. The problem is that the question they've asked every year since 2002 is deeply flawed as it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual choice American voters make when they go to the polls.

What if I told you... You can choose red and blue.

Do you ever wonder what would have happened if Neo took both the red and blue pills? What if I told you that you do not have to choose between red or blue? What if I told you that you can choose both?  Let's take a trip to political Wonderland and see "how deep the rabbit hole goes."

Voters Don't Like Their Choices
Amidst the Sturn und Drang of the 2016 presidential election, the dominant complaint is about choice. Many voters are profoundly unhappy with the binary choice they have been offered by our red and blue political parties. Part of the reason for this election malaise is that partisan voters feel compelled to vote for their party's standard bearer regardless of whether they like the nominee. The partisan voter's choice in a federal elections is always preordained.

Partisans Don't Have a Choice
The vast majority (80% +) of the American electorate are "light switch" partisan voters in all federal elections. Regardless of whether they identify as partisan Republicans, partisan Democrats, or whether they delude themselves by claiming to be "Independent", most Americans always vote a straight partisan ticket. They always vote the same party for President, Senator and Representative - without exception - every single time - over decades.

FYI - "leaners" vote exactly the same as "partisans"

The only real choice for partisans (and leaners) is not who they vote for, but whether or not they choose to vote. They can only turn the switch on or off. Since partisans have limited choice, they can become particularly frustrated when the partisan options selected by their partisan tribe are not particularly likable, trustworthy, qualified, or even remotely competent as candidates. Like, for example, the nominees in the 2016 presidential election.*

In a presidential year, the crisis of partisan choice becomes even more acute. This, in no small part, due to the identity voters invest in, and the importance voters attach to the role of President. The President is, after all, "Leader of the Free World" and "Commander in Chief" of the most powerful military in the history of the world. But voters investing their ideological hopes in a Presidential candidate tend to overlook an important aspect of the role.  To whit - The President of the United States is not the government of the United States. The President is not even necessarily the leader of the government of the United States. The President is the leader of a political party. When we have a unified one party government, the President may function as the leader of of the United States government if the president's party demonstrate sufficient partisan discipline.  But even under unified government, it is not always clear exactly where the seat of the United States government leadership resides.

Trump or Clinton? You won't believe who is worse! Your 2016 Comparative Political Demonology™ Cheatsheet.

Conventional wisdom informs us that most voters do not pay attention to presidential elections until after Labor Day. It is after Labor Day. As public service, the Dividist is pleased to offer this handy cheatsheet to help my fellow Americans catch up.

The 2016 presidential election is the ultimate Comparative Political Demonology™ (CPD™) election*. You may not be familiar with the term but you are probably familiar with the phenomena. CPD is where a partisan supporter of Candidate A from Party X explains that Candidate B from Party Y is unfit to be elected because of some heinous character flaw, despicable action, and/or unacceptable policy position. At which point a partisan supporter of Candidate B explains that Candidate A is actually worse, citing a counter example of said character flaw, despicable action, and/or unacceptable policy position. The discussion devolves into an argument of who is worse.

It's not a new phenomena. CPD happened in every United States presidential election since George Washington. A  2010 Volokh Conspiracy post distilled the never ending "My Side Versus the Other Side" hypocrisy complaint, which was echoed in  2012 with Ramesh Ponnuru's column "I'm Right, You're Wrong and Other Political Truths", as well as  Barton Hinkle's "The Wrong Side Absolutely Must Not Win". While not new, it does seems that this election the CPD is worse than usual. When the Republican nominee Donald Trump explicitly and literally demonizes the opposition by calling Hillary Clinton "the devil" it's hard to see how we can sink any lower on the CPD scale.

CPD arguments are, of course pointless, unresolvable,  and a complete waste of time. However, since there is nothing else of consequence being discussed by mainstream and social media in this election, the Dividist will endeavor in this post to definitively answer the question "Who is worse?" across the full range of key character flaws disputed in this election. You are welcome.

Cognitive Madisonianism, splitting tickets, the 2016 Senate race, and why American voters are smarter than pundits and political scientists.

UPDATED: 1-Nov-2016 

The Dividist's new favorite phrase is "Cognitive Madisonianism." It's just another way of saying that American voters, in their collective wisdom, prefer and vote for divided government.

Based on election results in the modern era, the assertion would seem to be unassailable. Since the end of WWII there have been 34 federal elections in the United States. In 22 of those elections, Americans elected a divided government. We chose divided government for 44 of the intervening 71 years or 62% of the time. We are currently in the 6th consecutive year of our most recent iteration with indicators pointing to divided government extending it's winning streak for at least two and probably four more years.

Wait. Do We Do That On Purpose?
That is the question. It's a simple fact that we vote for divided government far more often than not. It's that "cognitive" part that political scientists and pundits have a hard time swallowing.  They just can't believe we are doing this deliberately.

♫ Daisy, Daisy give me your answer sure... ♫ ♫ Trump's half crayzeee... ♫ ♫ That's why I'm voting for her... ♫

 I fixed the 'Daisy Ad" for the Clinton campaign. You're welcome, John Podesta  

Our last post outlined some of the geopolitical policy ramifications of  an American president being "unpredictable" with nuclear weapons - as was suggested by presidential nominee Donald Trump. Spoiler Alert: It's bad policy. Really, really bad. Not quite as important, but just as interesting, are the political ramifications of Trump's loose nuclear talk in this election.

This is not the first time the American voting public is being asked to consider the suitability of a Presidential candidate to have access to nuclear weapons. Probably the single most influential political TV ad in history was the infamous "Daisy Ad" run by the LBJ campaign against Goldwater in 1964:

Trump Deals "The Nuclear Card" - On The Table or Off The Table?

 Metaphor for the Trump campaign? 

On Wednesday MSNBC broadcast a Morning Joe interview with retired general Michael Hayden. In the course of the interview Joe Scarborough related a second hand anecdote from an unattributed international affairs adviser's presumably private conversation with Donald Trump four months earlier:

Watch: What are some major concerns about Trump's handling of national security? Hayden and #morningjoe weigh in. https://t.co/FyFoSmJlJI

— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) August 3, 2016

Scarborough's story set the twitterverse a-twitter, which is weird, given that Donald Trump said exactly the same thing in a very public televised MSNBC Townhall with Chris Mathews on March 30:

Through the Looking Glass And What the Voters Found There - The Donald and The Hillary

The Donald and The Hillary - with apologies to Lewis Carroll

The conventions are over. The nominees are chosen. The tickets are formed. The campaigns are underway. When the Dividist hacked Lewis Carroll last fall, he did not actually believe that Trump and Clinton would be the final choice offered by the major parties to the voters:

 "... it was obvious to the Dividist that Hillary Clinton's campaign was mortally wounded by her e-mail scandal, unfavorable ratings,  and other assorted Clintonesque baggage. A Joe Biden cavalry charge to rescue the Democratic Party was clearly in the works....  

If, for reasons that pass all understanding or any semblance of rationality, Donald Trump prevails and becomes the Republican nominee, there is a silver lining. The prospect of a Donald Trump presidency will make it very easy indeed to vote for Hillary Clinton and four more years of happily divided government."

This is what happens when you take a tumble down the rabbit hole.

Time to update our Adventure in Wonderland:

The Donald and The Hillary

Hillary was shining up the Progs,
But her case was not yet made.
And Bernie did his very best
To throw a lot of shade.
So it was not so very odd,
Deb made sure the Progs were played.

Cruz was moping sulkily,
Because throughout the run
Donald had no business to be there
After the polls were done -
"It's very rude of him," he said,
"To spoil all the fun!"

"No one believed I'd do it!"
The Donald was quick to chide.
And mainstream media said nothing more, 
looking for a place to hide.
Not even Roger Ailes spoke,
Since there were no more blondes to ride.

The time has come - the blogger said -
To talk of many things:
Of polls and pols and caucuses,
And candidates with bling.
And when the voters will get smart
And whether pigs have wings. 

No, the GOP will not lose the House. Not even if Trump loses in a landslide of biblical proportions.

UPDATE: 1-Nov-2016

A recent Cook Political Report (among other articles) excited Democrats and terrified Republicans by invoking the specter of a wave election flipping the House of Representatives majority control - "House Republicans Staring Into the Abyss: 10 Ratings Changes Favor Democrats":

"So many assumptions have been wrong this cycle that it's difficult to be definitive about another: that the House majority won't be in play in 2016.  Republicans are sitting on their largest majority since 1928 - 247 seats to 188 - meaning Democrats would need to pick up 30 seats, a daunting challenge given the GOP's immense redistricting advantage and the vaporization of swing districts. But all cycle, Democrats have daydreamed about Republicans nominating an extremely polarizing presidential candidate, and suddenly it's almost certain they will get their wish...   if November does turn into a Democratic rout, it's impossible to know just how bad it could get for Republicans sharing a ballot with Trump or Cruz."

The primary evidence offered by columnist David Wasserman was a shift in the Cook Report Rating for 10 seats (5 D, 5 R) with each seat ratcheting one notch in the Democrats direction. But, there is far less here than meets the eye.

United Coalition of the Divided - 2016 Edition

UPDATED: 7-Nov-2016

The Dividist initiated this exclusive club during the 2008 election cycle and recycled it in every federal election since. It was an ignominious start, with the Democrats seizing unified control of the federal government. The 2010 edition was barely posted in time for the midterms among much angst and gnashing of teeth. Can't complain about the result though, as divided government was emphatically restored. We managed an earlier start on the 2012 membership drive, and that worked out fine with the reelection of Barack Obama and divided government. In 2014, it was just a question of how divided we were going to get. The Democrats accommodated by digging themselves an even deeper hole in Congress, much to the delight of our 2014 Midterm United Coalition of the Divided. 

Now it's 2016. We know why we should vote for divided government. We know how to vote for divided government.  We just need enough of us to actually vote for divided government. 

This cycle we'll be voting for a new President with the Republicans in majority control of Congress. At the time of this writing, Republicans and Democrats are focused on eating their own. Soon Democrats will realize that a divided government state is the best they can hope for in this cycle. As always, the Dividist will welcome with open arms all disingenuous, insincere, and hypocritical partisan Democratic and Republican Party pretenders to the 2016 United Coalition of the Divided!

Membership is open to anyone writing anything in any form in any media in a vaguely positive way on the subject of divided government. New recruits will be added to the ranks, updating this post and blogroll from now until the 2016 election.

In Praise of the Smoke Filled Room - or - How I Learned To Love The Idea Of A Brokered GOP Convention

Image ripped from WSJ

As an undeniably lazy blogger, there are few things I find more satisfying than quoting myself while repurposing an old blog post. Why not? I often find my previously published blog posts to be insightful and profoundly moving.  Mitt Romney provided the catalyst for this particular exercise in self-plagiarization with his call for a brokered convention to stop Donald Trump from securing the nomination:

"If the other candidates can find some common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism. Given the current delegate selection process, that means that I’d vote for Marco Rubio in Florida and for John Kasich in Ohio and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state."

In other words, everyone stays in to deny Trump the 1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination before the convention. Trump may arrive in Cleveland with a plurality, but not a majority. Denied a first round nomination, another candidate could be selected at the convention, presumably built out of a coalition of the majority of delegates that support Rubio, Kasich, and Cruz.  This seems like an eminently reasonable strategy to avoid nominating a megalomaniacal authoritarian with zero understanding of our constitutional protections who is afflicted by narcissistic personality disorder and delusions of grandeur.  But that's just me.

Stupid Is As Climate Change Stupid Does Bernie Sanders brings the stupid to Meet The Press

Presidential wannabee Bernie Sanders was on Meet the Press with guest host Andrea Mitchell. He said something stupid about climate change. It was a "Jim Inhofe" level of stupid. But, since he said it with the usual "#FeelTheBern" Sanders passion and sincerity, the content was apparently missed by Andrea Mitchell, the mainstream media, and others who don't pay attention to the actual meaning of the words he uses.  We'll get back to what he said shortly.  First, a digression:

Some of you may remember all the way back to last February. There was an unseasonable cold spell and snowstorm in Washington D.C. Noted global warming skeptic and United States Senator Jim Inhofe delighted in tossing a snowball in the Senate chambers to demonstrate a point about the D.C. temporary anomalous local climate change - AKA - "weather."

Investors Love Divided Government - Fox Business News Republican Debate Edition

This debate is all about the moderators and financial news network talent.

The most popular search engine posts on this blog can be found within the "Investors Love Divided Government" label/tags. In fact, among the top posts in the 10 year history of the Dividist Papers are "Markets, Economy, Gridlock"  featuring Maria Bartiromo, "Investors Love Divided Government - 2010 Edition" featuring Amanda Drury. and "Investors Still Love Divided Government"  featuring Trish Regan and Michelle Caruso-Cabrerra.  The Dividist will let The Reader figure out for themselves the common thread. Hey, who are we to argue with success?