If it were, we'd all be making hand over fist money in our 401ks.

acts in mysterious ways. He gives advice on the health of a business and whether he THINKS a stock will do well in the near or far term, but IT IS NOT GUARANTEED. It's his professional opinion, after studying up on the business.

It's a probability thing. Like Nate Silver's probabilities.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.

The year 2000 and the term "tech stocks" come to mind...

I sure wouldn't bank all my hopes on what this blowhard says. 440 electorals?

I think we have perfect upward momentum while Mitch is in a nose dive death spiral.

Obama is drawing huge crowds in red states while Mitch is drawing Mitch crowds.

I still stand by it and think I might be under the winning total.

Of course that counts on Florida going for Obama

but I hope we can pull off those two

is turning into a dull roar.

I seem to remember him complaining about him. I know this past year he's been saying nice things, but I do seem to recall some hits earlier on.

One has nothing to do with the ohter.

If Romney were leading in most of hte battleground state polls, I might predict a Romney win, although I don't like Romney and didn't vote for him.

BTW, Cramer is a moderate Democrat. Or at least used to be. Mainly, he's an investment guy, though.

How many EC votes constitutes a landslide?

but I don't see it happening. Although I think Obama wins handily with 323 electoral votes.

This shitbag is wrong about everything. He was telling people to buy Lehman the week before it collapsed. He's a know nothing motherfucker.

He's like Bill Kristol or Dick Morris - I don't understand why these guys get paid to be so wrong about EVERYTHING.

no way he reaches 440. Or anywhere close to it.

330 is about his ceiling. And that's if everything breaks right.

And, that Georgia was a long shot, but I hadn't heard about those other three. South Carolina was mentioned earlier in the thread, and I haven't seen a poll for this state since January. That one had the President down by only 5 points. Judging by the lack of enthusiasm for Slick Willard that I have seen among my fellow South Carolinians, I wouldn't be surprised if it's still that close.

Texas? Wow you're kidding right?

I can't begin to imagine where you came up with that.

I don't think that's necessarily the case here, since presumably no money's directly involved in his prediction. But any time it is, his calling clearly has been to Fuck You Over. You'd be rich if you'd followed a strict line of betting the other way from what Cramer recommends. It's hard to believe there is no Anti-Cramer Index, or maybe I missed it. On the face of it it's also hard to believe this pump-and-dump whore still has a program, especially after Stewart's excellent televised assassination. Except, of course, that Cramer is not at all a failure. He is a functioning cog in the system, once you understand that it is supposed to suck small-investor patsies into the wood-chipper. (The Sirens who lured sailors to their deaths at least had a lovely song, unlike the unbearable noise of Cramer's show.)

Cramer, Dow at 36,000 and the sad lack of a guillotine in American life. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/JackRiddler/316

I guess the hardest part to believe is that anyone still watches the show, after all the people he's screwed with his fake-ass predictions. There's a certain class of system-supporting celebrity pundit who simply cannot be put down. Doesn't matter how wrong they are, what stupid things they write, what scandals they get embroiled in, year-in-year-out, they are never discredited. (See Joe Klein, Tom Friedman, David Brooks, etc. etc.) HuffPo is part of that culture, of course.

Finally, those of you still equating the DJIA with the nation's interest and wanting to claim credit on Obama's behalf should rethink that. It's peaked again and we will be revisiting the under-10,000 territory. These are the dynamics of capitalism; the standard array of government policies only make temporary differences.

Wow!

as Dick Morris.

I need to do a trip to electoral-vote.com for this, but 440 probably requires every state with 5 or more EV, including Texas which we won't get.

shows what the map would look like in Jim's lala land

If it was Brian Schweitzer running against Romney, then yeah I could see it: he's a rancher who hunts, and he looks like a NASCAR team owner. (On this I am not kidding:


This is Brian Schweitzer, the current governor of Montana.


This is Richard Childress, CEO of the racing team Dale Earnhardt drove for until he got killed doing it.)

But Obama? WAY too many anyone-but-Obama types down there for him to win it.

The margins of Obama's inevitable victory are:
Low: 302 electoral votes. I think we'll cross 250 before the California polls close, and not even Rush Limbaugh thinks he can win Calif.
High: Everything except Texas and the four-and-under crowd.

Obama taking &quot e)verything except Texas and the four-and-under crowd" means he carries Utah's six electoral votes. The most recent poll, from November 1, had Romney squeaking by in Utah, 69% to 26%. We'll need SOME ground game to overcome that.

In the latest map at electoral-vote.com, Romney has 139 EV's from the "strongly GOP" states (which I think are those in which the polling average puts Romney's lead at 10% or more). If Romney wins those states and no others, Obama has 399 EV's. To get even to that level, Obama has to carry states like Georgia, South Carolina, Montana, Arizona, South Dakota, and a few others.

That site's "likely GOP" states total 52 EV's. Adding those to the other Romney states gives him 191 EV's. Obama gets the remaining 347 only by winning ALL the states commonly considered swing states. I'd say that's Obama's upper bound and even getting that high is very unlikely.

We are still looking at an significant Obama victory under even the most pessimistic "Obama wins" scenario available.

I just don't see the south turning out for R.... just don't see it.

there's no way it will be close. Even when racism is factored in. There's no way millions of people are looking at Mitt and saying, "Lies and flip flops aside, Mitt will be a great president!" You can't trust him. Period.

We did a story in today's paper (go to www.cdapress.com and look for The age-old difference) where our reporter talked to elderly people who like Romney and young people who like Obama...plus one lovable old coot who remembers the two finest politicians this state has ever produced, Frank Church and Cecil Andrus, were both Democrats. Anyway...one person said we need a businessman like Romney to set this country right. The problem with that is, going to Mitt Romney to fix the economy when your problem is undertaxation and wars-on-credit is like taking a hangnail to Jack Kevorkian - what he will do won't fix your problem but it will make your situation worse.

Especially if we don't slack off.

National Journal's Jim Tankersely came up with one using CNN's interactive map.

Sounds just like Cramer.

Wouldn't doubt if someone else put him up to it, much like the way they were betting before 9/11.

The corporate moguls have invested every inch of integrity and legitimacy of their paid-for-media into making this look like a close election. In which case it's not hard to imagine a little side betting

Let's all try and be realistic and have some sanity. No chance in Hell Obama gets anywhere near 440 EV's or 55%. Probably 290 and 51%, that's my prediction.

Would require the entire south going blue or the entire west plus one more state.

Jim Cramer has always been an idiot.

Bill Clinton won big in 1996 and still only got to 379.

I know...I know...tell us how you really feel. lol

or vote "Jesus". It would be nice but so would winning the lottery.

He may be an obnoxious douchebag, but at least he's pro-Obama.

the electorate is allowed to honestly register to vote and the public has an unbiased pool of info from which to work.