Area Nonpartisan Hedge Fund Manager Still Working Out How People Could Cast Their Vote For President Based On A Little Rain

“For years I kept these memos away from anything related to politics. But more recently I began to discuss issues facing the United States, and this has required some mention of policy and thus of politics. I’ve tried very hard to be non-partisan, with a goal of not having readers know my leanings…Because I found America’s recent presidential election – and especially the results – so fascinating, I’m going to move explicitly to the field of politics, but with the same goal of non-partisan expression…If you believe the exit polls, people who were positively influenced by the handling of Sandy could have made up all or more of Obama’s 2.8% margin of victory. If it’s true that Sandy was the deciding factor for 15% of the electorate, and if it caused just a fifth of those people to switch to Obama, that means without Sandy, Romney would have won. I find it shocking that the choice of a president for four years could turn on something as fickle as the weather.” [Howard Marks]

(hidden for your protection)
Show all comments

34 Responses to “Area Nonpartisan Hedge Fund Manager Still Working Out How People Could Cast Their Vote For President Based On A Little Rain”

  1. DingALing says:

    Having your house destroyed means you're homeless. Homeless means you need hand outs. Obama gives handouts. I'll leave the rest for you all to decide how he got the supposed 2.8% margin.

  2. Dr_Rosenrose says:

    Aggressive assumption, aggressive assumption, aggressive assumption, CONCLUSION!
    Mr. Marks, I like your process and wonder if you have any capacity available in your fund?

  3. Louis Bacon says:

    he hits the marks with this comment.
    but its my understanding that sandy upset more oaktrees than just this one.
    i for one have been bullish chainsaws since this summer!

  4. American voter says:

    You're calling the weather fickle?

  5. Al Gore says:

    He'll pay for this.

  6. Guest says:

    I'm touched. I had no idea the rest of the country cared so deeply about NJ, NYC and LI. Even before the hurricane, Obama could have shit on Bruce Springsteen's front lawn wearing an Eagles jersey and he still would have won NJ.

  7. Son Nature says:

    STFU about my Mom already Howie.

  8. guest says:

    Or Howard maybe 2.8% of the people think a man who has dedicated his life and his devotion to a totally fucked up religion could render his judgements questionable in the deciding the future of our country. At least we knew Obama sucked donkey balls already, who knows what path a mormon could've dragged us down!

    -guy who hates mormons

  9. Judge Scalia says:

    He won! Get over it!

  10. CNN says:

    Romney got more votes than McCain, not 800k fewer.

  11. guest says:

    and sandy fucks me again!

  12. guest says:

    "I’ve tried very hard to be non-partisan, with a goal of not having readers know my leanings"

    you didn't do a very good job.

  13. Tom Adshead says:

    I know this is not really the place for serious comment, but isn't this a classic example of the availability heuristic? I mean, voters were influenced by recent events, and the most recent event happened to be the weather. Had it not been the weather, it would have been something else, say, some recently committed crime, and the candidates' response to it. And we would have put the question "Is it really the case that this randomly committed crime can decide who will be the leader of the Free World?".
    It's not the event that's important, but the system that forces the choice to be made on a particular day every four years. But as they say, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried"

  14. P.O. says:

    Sadly, people forget that Romney stated during the campaign that he would privatize the delivery of disaster relief services. It would have been nice for Mr. Marks to include this in his analysis.

    What's more efficient? The government having the capacity to deploy tens of billions of aid at a moment's notice or having some private company with less experience in disaster relief (because, after all, it's historically been a government undertaking) and who most definitely would cut corners should the occasion arise? Who would you trust to get you back on your feet quicker? I'd go with Uncle Sam.