1) Look at Hilary donor list
2) Get loan and invest in donors
3) Wait
4) Hilary elected
5) $$$
You can ALL thank me later
>>1380035
Great strategy, especially with Trump winning.
>>1380037
nope
:)
all female 100% guaranteee
>>1380037
>>1380035
>"You want to take out a loan because WHY?"
>"Im going to invest in the companies that donate money to Hillary Clinton."
>"Get out of my office."
>>1380054
As if the banker would risk suicide by way of nailgun to the back of his head. He'll give you the money
>>1380037
>this
do you really think she can stump the Trump?
>>1380035
>i don't already base my portfolio on the politicians portfolios/donors
It's already cashed in, mate. The early bird catches the worm.
>>1381977
yes
>>1382011
Think again http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147342251861/trumps-glide-path
>>1380035
This is retarded, nobody would give you a loan without backing it up with guarantees or a business plan.
Since your plan is a pretty stupid gamble, I guess you have no guarantees, you're fucked.
>>1382015
>a blog as a source
oh
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Notice how only one poll, which was conducted by a pollster with a noted conservative bias (their final pre-election poll in 2012 had Romney ahead nationally and beating or tied with Obama in states like North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin, all of which were states that Obama won), has Trump ahead?
Notice how Clinton leads in every battleground except Georgia?
Donald Trump and low-energy loser Mike Pence will not defeat Hillary Clinton and whichever male she picks for her VP (I'm leaning Tom Perez).
>>1382055
>Since your plan is a pretty stupid gamble
it's not a gamble. Trump just picked Pence as VP so it's almost guaranteed that Hillary will win this one
>>1380035
>company/people who donate to a winning presidential candidate dont go to shit
>your candidate you donated to gets elected means you lottery winner now
Op might be confused about what an election race is. It's not really a horse race, m8
Didn't Trump donate to the Clintons years ago? Is that the reason he's a billionaire, Op?
>>1380035
Barack Obama's top 3 public donors in 2008 were Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, and JPMorgan Chase (University of California and Harvard were the top and third largest donors, respectively). John McCain's three largest donors were JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley (Merrill Lynch was actually his largest donor, but they're now BofA).
The top chart is the performance of Obama's top 3 donors from the final trading day before the election to one year after the election. The bottom chart is the performance of McCain's top 3 donors in that same time span. Notice how McCain's donors saw the worst loss but also the best gain.
There is literally no method to your madness. Don't do it.
>>1383739
You can see the same thing for 2012. Obama's top 3 public donors (top) were Microsoft, Google, and Time Warner, Romney's (bottom) were Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley.
As you can see, Romney's chart has the donor with the best gain.
>>1383739
This isn't a big enough data pool to make any real assessment imho. What you would really need to do is backtest it over the course of a few decades using data samples from the top 10 donors instead of top 3. If you use that chart alone it suggests that all of Obamas donors made gains while one of McCains donors fell in the red.
>>1383772
Better?
Top: Obama. Morgan Stanley, General Electric, IBM, Time Warner, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs. Average return: 9.815%.
Bottom:McCain. Citigroup, FedEx, Bank of America, Credit Suisse, AT&T, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase. Average return: 23.494%.
>>1380037
FPBP
>>1383811
So the real question is then... what do they get out of it? Whats the angle?
>>1384878
What do you mean?
>>1383655
>national polls
Useless
>>1385223
>ignores the state polls
Into the trash it goes.
