You could just tell, the media didn’t give Trump a chance. Their tone gave it away.
Journalists who covered Trump didn’t want him to win. And they always gave themselves the luxury of assuming he’d lose.
It was easier to think that way, for one. And besides, the very serious number cruncher types said he was toast.
The serious number cruncher types are (or were) the high priests of political journalism. They build big complex models to work out who’s likely to win, based on the polling data. The models spit out each candidate’s percentage chance of winning. And those numbers set the tone for how the media covers the election.
There are five models:
The Princeton Election Consortium model, which gave Trump a 0.1% chance of winning.
The New York Times’ Upshot model, which gave Trump a 14% chance.
The FiveThirtyEight model, which gave Trump a 34% chance.
The Benchmark Politics model, which gave Trump a 15% chance.
And the Huffington Post Pollster model, which gave Trump a 1.6% chance.
You can take a look at the models online. They look highly scientific. They’re so rigorous-looking that the journalists, and currency traders, and gold investors subcontracted their own analysis to the models.
The journalists didn’t follow their instincts. The traders didn’t hedge their bets. Everyone assumed it was a done deal – and they got burned.
Jim Rickards doesn’t work like that. He does his own research, and he has his own sources. And when he disagrees with the consensus opinion, he’s not afraid to say so.
Last week, here’s what Jim told his subscribers about the election:
“My expectation is that Trump will win the election on 8 November.
However, that forecast is a close call. The election will be close and Clinton could win despite our expectation.
What is not a close call is the markets’ expectation. All major markets are close to 100% priced for a Clinton victory.
If the actual odds of a Trump victory are just better than even money, and markets are priced for sure thing Clinton victory, then we are set up for one of the greatest asymmetric trading opportunities of all time, better than Brexit.
If Clinton wins, you won’t lose much if anything because markets are priced for that. If Trump wins, you win big because markets will have to instantaneously reprice for an unexpected outcome.”
Jim called Brexit and now he’s called Trump. He showed his subscribers how to prepare themselves and how to profit each time.