The following is a presentation of TFNN. Trade what you see with Larry Pezzavento all now toll free at 1-877-927-6648 or internationally at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Now, Larry Pezzavento. Okay, looking good, Billy Ray feeling good for us. We're going to take a look here at the hourly chart here of the Treasury bonds. If you remember, we were looking at this 382 yesterday. This was right when we were on the show. We did get a little above it. The number we were looking at was 12331 and we did go up about $300. And now the markets reversed. As you can see, it's made the first profit objective, which was $1,000 right here. We're now up another $1,500. And if you look at this now, remember, this is not a long term chart of any sort. This is basically an hourly chart. So what you're seeing is now, you're seeing a three drive to a bottom pattern forming here. So all we want to be doing now is to measure to see where we are because there's going to be, you'll see there's drive one, there's drive two, there's drive three. And you'll see here, the 1.27 expansion on that comes in right here at 12212. That's down eight pips from where that's forming. Now, remember, this is a 60-minute chart, folks. So you've got a lot of information. You've got it since the January 2. Two days of information that we can look at so we can use that. So as we look at this, we're going to blow this up just to see if there's a timing factor. And usually there is. What we're going to do now is we're going to measure from the high to the low right in here. That's what we're going to do. We're just going to measure that. Okay. And then we're going to take these extra ones off. So we only have one to look at. So that means that if from this high to this low took this distance, which was 25 hours, you can see 25 hours, it should be close to 25 hours pretty soon. And as you look at this right here, 25 hours will be sometimes at the end of the day today. So watch it now. There's two areas to be watching for profit objective. Okay. Okay. The first one, of course, is right here. That's the 1.27 expansion that comes in at 11210. We're 11219 right now. And then we have the big daddy rabbit down here, the big 1.618 one, which is really important one. And they're all important, but this is even super important because if this one doesn't hold, you know, Treasury bonds are in big trouble. Anyway, that comes in at 121.26. The key point is it didn't go against us too much. And that's exactly what it's all about. It's all about risk control. You can't control the market. The market's going to do whatever it wants to. But this is some of the timing things that we're looking at. They're very simple time counts, folks. That's all we're looking at. There's your 25 comes out in about another 1, 2, 3, 4 hours. By the end of the day today, we should be bottoming here in Treasury bonds and getting a little bit more of a bounce to the next one. The next one that I am very happy to bring to your attention here, even though the whole world said this one's never going to work. And me being part of the whole world, I didn't think it was going to either. But here is the little piggies. And as you can see here, we're having a monster day here in the pigs. They're up about almost $0.04, folks, from $0.65 to $0.69. We're almost there right now, which tells us this is probably going to be a pretty good move. And it might even give you something like that. You don't know. You have to wait one day at a time. But being that far ahead, what you'd want to be is lock in at least a $500 profit here in the market. That's the way I was doing it. Let's just look at this. This is a daily chart. Let's do the same thing what we did in the Treasury bonds. Let's do this with the daily, with the piggies. The pigs are the hogs. There's a very heavily traded market by the hedge funds, folks. It's not a small market. From the high to the low, it took, these are in days now. It took eight days. Eight days down. I've got to get rid of this and put this thing back where it should be. What I have to do now is go down to this right here and then I have to use this as a default. Otherwise, it'll keep doing that. So now I know that it's eight days down in this move right here. So we've got a high up in here. So all we're going to do now is we're going to go from the high right here down to the low. The high is right there. Right there is a high. It misses it by one day. Now the profit objective is there 6534, but look what's happened. We're very close. This one was eight days down. This one was one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. This was two days later. So there's nothing you can do about that, but you have to put a place in to buy it. And of course we were looking at this big ABCD right here. That's the, that's the one that's running the whole show. So that's what we're watching. So we're going to get a pretty good rally in here. First, as I first mentioned here, it most probably will duplicate what it did here. That would take us up to about 63 and change. So it worked out well. They don't always work out well, but when they do, it makes it makes it very, very comfy to see that, see that unfold here. Okay. Now the other one that we want to be talking about here is the wheat market folks. We owe our friend, Mr. J S over there in New Jersey. This we've been following this for a very long time. He alerted me to it right before about an hour. Well, not even an hour, but 10 minutes before it was scheduled to open because we were trading down there. We hit the eggs. Look at this folks. You talk about a market. If you want to learn ABCDs, look at this. A B C D A B C D to absolute perfection. So that's why it's so very, very interesting to watch these things here. Okay. I'm folding. So watch this. As we look at this on an hourly chart, you'll see here when it hit it today, you can see the number here. It's so perfect. It hit it to the exact tick at 591 and a half. And the lowest we're looking at 591.3. It can't get any better than that. Now the rally back has been quite substantial. I think we've already made, we jumped 20 cents off the bottom folks. That in itself tells you that's something good about this. But if you look at this from the high that we made right back here to your low, we see we're already already quite a bit above the 382 already. Very, very important because looking at this on the hourly. This is a perfect garly folks.  There's your B leg. There's your C leg coming in right there at the 61% retracement. And as we pointed out before, it is none other than one of those AB equals CD moves. Like I said before, they don't work like that all the time, but they do some of the time. And that's the key that we're watching here as we're looking at some of these things here unfold. Okay. Next one we want to look at is the Euro. They got a potential potential here for the Euro. Let me get this up here so that we'll be able to see it. And there's where we've been watching. We had the big move down. We've already let's just go over and repeat it so you can see where we've been and where we're going. There's the big ABCD to the upside. Okay. Looking at this on the daily, you'll be able to see it. This is clear as can be at the 78% level. Now we've had a move down. We stopped almost at the exact 61% retracement. Let's clean it up so we can see a little better. Let's take a break and we'll get back and we'll be talking about the Euro and a couple of the currencies. So stay with us.<PHONE_NUMBER>. Steve Rhodes started his trading career as a student almost 20 years ago and the student has now become the master. Steve won the prestigious Timer of the Euro award in 2018 and barely missed that mark again in 2019, finishing it number two for the year. An amazing accomplishment. Steve Rhodes is committed to sharing his techniques and knowledge with anyone who wants to learn and he shares his vast amount of trading knowledge every day in his Mastering Probability newsletter. Steve's award-winning newsletter, Mastering Probability is delivered every trading day with updates throughout the afternoon. Sign up for Steve's market newsletter, Mastering Probability and you'll receive access to seven of Steve's educational webinars absolutely free. At TFNN, all our newsletters come with a 30-day money-back guarantee so you have absolutely nothing to worry about. Visit TFNN.com and try Mastering Probability 30 days risk-free today. TFNN Educating Investors. Are you ready to take your trading to the next level? Introducing Tom O'Brien's award-winning newsletter, Market Insights, your key to successful active trading. Tom O'Brien, renowned for his expertise in the financial markets, has designed Market Insights to be your daily guide to profitable trades. Tom publishes his daily Market Insights newsletter every market day before the market open, along with updates when warranted. Stay ahead of the game with Tom's real-time analysis and trade recommendations delivered straight to your inbox.  Ready to join the ranks of successful traders? Head over to TFNN.com and subscribe to Market Insights today. Don't miss out on this opportunity to supercharge your trading results. Market Insights comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee for all new subscribers, so you have nothing to risk. Don't miss out on this opportunity to revolutionize your trading game. Head over to TFNN.com right now to join the thousands of traders who have already experienced the power of Tom O'Brien's award-winning newsletter, Market Insights firsthand. TFNN Educating Investors. We've been educating traders for more than 20 years, with live programming hosted by a variety of professional traders during market hours, and now they are expanding their reach with the Tiger's Den, available to all tigers and tigers for just $1 for the year. There's no catch or added costs when you join our community of traders. In the Tiger's Den, you can look over the shoulders of Tom O'Brien and the other TFNN hosts while they analyze charts during their live Tiger TV programs and join an interactive trading community with hundreds of members exchanging ideas, interact with other tigers and tigers as they share trading ideas, news analysis, and discuss the market action all trading day, even at night and on the weekends. The Tiger's Den Discord is accessible on mobile or tablets as well, so it's always at your reach. To sign up today and become a part of this educational community of traders, just visit the front page of TFNN.com. Toll Free at 1-877-927-6648. Internationally at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Okay, folks, I'm back and I wanted to go over this Euro chart here with you. By the way, folks, there's been some interest, of course, in anything going on in Las Vegas. It's going to be in April. It's going to be at the JW Marriott. And it's going to be Tom Hougart and I trading live for the 28th, 27th, and 28th of April. Let's double check that layer. April 27th. And it's excuse me, let's try it again. It's the 25th and 26th of April is where it's going to be. And we'll be doing, it'll be 10 hours each day. And we're going to have some fun. I met Tom O'Brien in Las Vegas, Tom O'Brien Tom Hougart. I met Tom O'Brien in the late 1990s. But in 2004, Bryce Gilmore was giving a seminar.  And people came in on Thursday and live trading on Friday. And so the problem was Bryce's friends from the ex-patriots that lived in Los Angeles came over and got him a little bit in the party mood and he couldn't quite make it. He couldn't quite make it was the understatement. Anyway, we were there at six o'clock in the morning ready to start trading at five o'clock at, you know, at six o'clock in the morning. And Mark Douglas came up to me because he and I had come over to see Bryce because we were good friends. And Rich Anderson was there and Rich came up and he said, Larry, he said, Bryce isn't going to make it. And I said, well, these buddies last night, he said he just got in at four o'clock and he said they won't be here. And so I understood what that meant and Mark handed me the clicker and he said he achieved takeover. And so we started trading at six o'clock in the morning. So two in the afternoon. It was one of those days where everything worked out really good. And Tom Hougard was quite excited. He was the point man for CNBC in London for Michael Spencer at City Index. And so he did that until 2009. And then Mike Spencer decided to retire and he was kind enough to give Tom a tremendous going away package that gave him the opportunity to trade full time. And he's been doing that ever since. So he and I will be doing it. Folks, the difference is I am a trader. Tom is a money maker. He's a machine.  I'm buying and selling trades that give me a probability of winning good return. But what he does is totally you'll see if you ever watch him. He's really he's really amazing. Now here is the Euro. Let's get back to where we were here in this Euro. The rule says you sell the first 382 in a bear market. You don't know where the bar market is, but that's what you want to do is sell the first 382. Here was the high in the Euro up there at the 786. Now here it went a little above the 382. But then look at this came right down to it. You'll see there's had a little bit of this is nothing more than a three day rally. Remember, this is this is a really small excuse me, two day rally right here right at the exact 382 again. So why wouldn't you think it's not going to make it here on the next day or so? So put this limit minder in so that you'll be able to see it. What we're going to do is we're going to draw it from the top up in here. This is no different than the bonds, folks. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, but this is what we want to be watching for. And you'll see here, there's a couple of smaller patterns in here. It might take a little time to get up there, but there's the key number. I'm going to put that in right now so that I can watch what's going on. And we'll pay close attention to what we're seeing here is these things unfold. Okay, that's the main thing that we're that we're looking at right here. Okay, now I want to get back here. I think I covered everything I wanted to all the things that were like the crude all haven't done the crude. Let me get this up here. Well, I'll do this right here just for some kicks and giggles. Some people always ask me about the AI program. This is the artificial intelligence program that I talk about and I teach people how to do this. Folks, this is really easy to learn how to do this. I mean, we spent, oh dear, I don't even want to think about the money that I spent on this stuff over the years, but it basically comes down that the market repeats over and over again. You know, that's really, really look at the low right here. Here's where it should start down from and it does. It does a pretty good. Now, you see, it doesn't do much in here, but on the overall thing of what you're looking at it did relatively well. So this is what we're always looking at. All you have to do is to just to copy this copy this line right there. You just copy that line and you notice it goes from eight o'clock to 12 o'clock. I'm going to get in trouble because people are going to ask me to do this again and I don't want to do this again. So pay attention. You want to know the key times of the day. This is all in the Floor Traders Handbook, folks. All that stuff with the bonds, all that stuff is the key times of the Floor Traders Handbook. And these are the key times, nine o'clock and 12 o'clock. What's so hard about that? So if you've got a bottom possibly here at 12 o'clock, take a look at it. You don't have to risk very much. If you just looked at the price objective here of crude oil, look where you are. Where do you think that was, folks? Right at the exact... Ba-da-bing, Ba-da-boom. Two hours in a row. Hit the same one. 7108, not 7103, not 7105, 7108. It's at low with 7106. You can't get any closer than that. So that's why you're paying very, very close attention to these. Now as we're coming back really strong here, remember how important this bottom was. That was a 786 on the long-term daily. Let's just get this up here, so remind ourselves. And this is why you don't want to be jumping back and forth. If you're trading the daily chart, that hourly chart means nothing to you.  And so what you want to be sure is that you don't lose anything on this. Make sure you'd lock in at least $1,000 profit. Because you've got to risk $1,000 in crude oil. It just jumps around so much that you just... It'll go 30, 40 pips in just because of one order. And believe me, these orders that are over there in Singapore, which is the number... Believe it or not, I've heard this from three people in the business. That Singapore is the leading place for crude oil trading in the world, followed closely by London and then third, New York. And that's the way I understood it. So we'll see what's happening. The Saudis run all their business through the U.S. markets and through the markets in the financial markets of London also. Okay, now let's get on here. We've got another break coming up here, but I want to cover the gold market. Here's the market we had in gold. We have the... This is... Here was our $64 mistake here was buying that 382. We lost on that. We came all the way down in the market, rallied back. Last night... Remember, this is just an eight-minute chart. So this has just been what's been happening today. We went up to the exact 786, a perfect example of how these algorithmic traders are in there. Now, look at this. After this high was in, you have the three lower tops. That's a 135 pattern. Blow that up just a tiny bit. There it is. And now it started to move down and look what's popped up on the tote board here, folks. Let's just blow this up and see how close it was. This is a 45-minute rally, okay? And let's see if it stopped exactly at the 382. Yes, Johnny. I see you have your placard up and it is... 50%, Johnny. You flunk.  Hope you mind that, folks. Yes, I'll take my medication during the break.<PHONE_NUMBER>. The gold report. As a precious metal, gold is still king. It continues to hold the most effective safe haven and hedging properties across the global major trading hubs of the London OTC market, the US futures market, and the Shanghai Gold Exchange. The gold report. Tom O'Brien publishes his weekly gold report every Monday morning for subscribers, consisting of coverage of the XAU, HUI, GDX, the Dollar, Bonds, the South African Rand, as well as 25 different mining equities with specific buy-sell recommendations. The gold report. New subscribers get a 30-day money back guarantee so you have nothing to risk. Subscribe to Tom O'Brien's Gold Report newsletter now at TFNN.com. Currencies, commodities, and bond markets are as important as ever right now with how they're driving the volatility in equity markets across the globe, which is why it's a great time to try out Teddy Kegstad's Tiger Forex report. Teddy Kegstad breaks down the forex markets every Monday using his 30-plus years of experience as a trading veteran of futures, forex, stocks, and options. Teddy releases his weekly Tiger Forex report every Monday morning with coverage of all the major currency pairs, including the Dollar Index, the Euro Dollar, Pound Dollar, Dollar Swiss, Dollar Yen, as well as many more, and he also has weekly coverage of the crude oil market and the 30-year T-bonds as they both influence forex markets tremendously. When you sign up for the Tiger Forex report, you also gain instant access to Teddy's 60-minute Webinar Archive. He just hosted Forex Strategies and Fundamentals What is Behind the Tiger Forex Report. For all the details and to start your 30-day Tiger Forex report subscription today, visit the front page of TFNN.com. TFNN Educating Investors Everything in the universe is governed by the Fibonacci sequence. This mathematical principle is responsible for everything from the most aesthetically pleasing artwork to patterns in the stock market. To stay on top of stock patterns you can take advantage of, sign up for the Fibonacci 24-7 newsletter at TFNN.com. When you subscribe, you'll get a weekly report from veteran day trader Larry Pezzavento on stocks you need to pay attention to. And you can trust Larry's analysis. After all, he's got 45 years' experience as a day trader. Larry will also provide daily charts, videos, and data on the key markets that he's tracking. Expect notifications from Larry on market movement you need to act on at any time. First-time subscribers also get a 30-day money-back guarantee. If you're not satisfied, let us know and you'll get a full refund within 30 days of signing up. Subscribe to the Fibonacci 24-7 newsletter today, TFNN.com Educating Investors. This was the low here on the 20th of December right here. Now you notice that everybody, theoretically everybody that's bought stock, this is the S&P 500. I know there's some people that didn't buy Apple, some people that did, doesn't make any difference. It just means that in general everybody that bought stock from the 20th of December on, okay, now is basically break even. That's why I pointed this out to you. This happens to be two standard deviations down from the mean 100 handles. So that's why that's happening right now. The rally that we have here today, though, you'll see this little three-hour rally didn't go very far at all, did it? So all you want to do is to verify it, is to go back and find a high. There's a three-hour rally here. There was a three-hour rally here and a three-hour rally here. So let's just take this high level right here. This is the high spot. Okay, and we're going to go back and look. Where does it come to? Right near the 50% level. You can see between the two. But this was a three, and it was important because that was the ABCD that took you down to the bottom. That's how the Elliott Wave principle works. You know, that's really where it's all ABCD, and of course we made a lower low here. Now we've had a rally. We've set up here that if we get this one, boys and girls, just look out far, far north to the up there in the hinterland of where Santa Claus lives, because this would be the one that will make your Christmas for next year. There's your high, X. There's your A, B, C, and D, and you go up to where it'll say 3-8-2, which will be right there, right where all this garbage came down from. And that will be what you want to be watching, okay? I don't care what time of the day, the night it is. I take a look at that because you ought to have it when you go to bed at night. You have an order setting there, just like in the Bonds at 4780 and put a stop up here at 4080. So you got to put a stop in here about 20 points away. Put your stop up here above 40. There's a 618 level here, so you've got a risk. You've got a risk. I don't like that. I like to sell, but I don't like risking that much money, but you've got to do it, folks. You've got to sell this one here with your stop up here. Ordinarily, the maximum risk is 20 handles, but you've got to go out to 30 handles now in this because we've got some volatility in here that could take it up to this level. But frankly, if it just takes three days to do this, it's not going to happen today, probably not going to happen tomorrow. So maybe early next week, if this bottom can hold, if this bottom doesn't hold and all bets are off, but if this bottom holds coming in here on Monday and Tuesday and Monday, of course, we know that that is a very, very important cycle date, especially if you live anywhere near Tupelo, Mississippi, because that's where the king was born on January the 8th, 1932. What was it, 35? It was 35, 1935. He was a twin. His other brother was named Aaron, but he didn't make it through childbirth. Just a little tidbit. One of my most disappointing things is I went to Gateway Gulf. Oh, dear. Oh, now I can't remember the name of Graceland. I went to Graceland first time in 89. And it was just gearing up. And it was so small. It was just a little bit bigger than my house in Wesley Village. Not that it was a big house, but that was a mansion back in the 50s. But in California, they had those big obstetrician, those houses that were a little too big anyway. It was only like 3,500 square feet. It was not like, I think it was like 4,000 or 5,000 feet. It didn't seem much different. The kitchen was the same size. The living room was smaller. Anyway, that was a unit there. But let's move on here to the next one. We want to talk about that gold market since we're on it right now. Oh, I do want to, I did. I want to show you. Just to give you right here, right here. Something I really wanted to do today and I didn't. And I'll just shoot shooting because this is a 60 minute. Go down to let's say a four minute here. And here's the market took off. Right here from this was there. There was just exact 61% retracement. And then I kept looking for a 382 all morning long to try to get the 382 to buy it. You see, this misses it by a penny here. The next time it goes up a little higher. And I just kept following it up. Didn't get filled on any of them because there was no, there was no pullback at all on any of these to give you a chance for a 382. So. Missed that part of it, but that's that's neither here to there, but there was a buy just absolute with thank Jeff there in the New Jersey because it was just as perfect as you could possibly imagine. That is what Gartley talked about. Number of days down. Look, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.   And that's what trading is all about. Okay, let's move on here to cover that. Oh, need to cover the NASDAQ. Someone asked to take care of the NASDAQ here. That's always an interesting one to look at. And move over here. This is an hourly chart for the NASDAQ. There's your standard deviation right down there. Boy, it hasn't bounced before you talk about it. It hasn't even moved at all to the downside. But back this, let's take a look at it since it's made its high back here on the 28th. Okay, it's had several rallies. This one, let's just see how, see if it's following its game plan. Okay, there's the first rally right here. The next rally was pretty much right there. The next rally was pretty much right there. The next rally didn't quite make it and this one did it also. Until we get above here, we're still moving to the downside. But again, there's that possibility that we could be looking at this pattern right here. Let's just go to a smaller time frame so we can see it really clearly. There it is. A low operator. Get this up here and take a quick look at it. I hope you guys don't get too bored at this stuff. I could do this until the cows come home and we don't even have cows here in Tucson. We have cattle. Hold on here. A, B, C, D. We could be looking at a nice rally here. Up another 170 points without any trouble at all. And we want to find out what that is going to be. If it's going to be, you know what? The old magic number, it's not even going to be close because look at this, folks. From the high we made way back here. On the second, that was the big high and you come down and you look here. It comes in at, oh my gosh, it comes in at the devil's number. 1666. This is what the Dow bottomed at on March the 5th of 2009. I believe the Dow was trading at, no, it was trading at 666 maybe. I don't remember. 666, yeah, 666, not 16,000. Anyway, this is the 382 of the move in the NASAC. So keep that on your watch board because that might happen. Well, that could happen tomorrow. It could happen today. It might not happen until Tuesday. It might not happen at all. I don't know. But that's what we're going to be watching and watch that 382. That's no different than the thing we looked at here in the Bonds. They don't always work that way, like I say. But when you have, like with Louis Pasteur, my favorite quote there is, chance favors that prepared mine. We'll be right back. You might think that if you want to be successful at trading in the stock market, you're going to need a crystal ball. After all, it's impossible to predict the future, right? Like any endeavor in life, before you decide it's impossible, get some advice from the experts. You might find that it's not so impossible after all. For daily market overviews that give you direction on the key indices, selective stocks and commodities, subscribe to the opening call newsletter at tfnn.com. The opening call newsletter is written by Basil Chapman, creator of the trading methodology known as the Chapman Wave. The Chapman Wave up-down sequence gives you an edge in identifying price turns, finding the peaks and valleys in stock prices.  First-time subscribers also get a 30-day money-back guarantee. If you're not satisfied, let us know and you'll get a full refund within 30 days of signing up. tfnn.com Educating investors. Are you ready to take your trading to the next level? Introducing Tom O'Brien's award-winning newsletter, Market Insights, your key to successful active trading. Tom O'Brien, renowned for his expertise in the financial markets, has designed Market Insights to be your daily guide to profitable trades. Tom publishes his daily Market Insights newsletter every market day before the market open, along with updates when warranted. Stay ahead of the game with Tom's real-time analysis and trade recommendations delivered straight to your inbox.  Ready to join the ranks of successful traders? Head over to tfnn.com and subscribe to Market Insights today. Don't miss out on this opportunity to supercharge your trading results. Market Insights comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee for all new subscribers, so you have nothing to risk. Don't miss out on this opportunity to revolutionize your trading game. Head over to tfnn.com right now to join the thousands of traders who have already experienced the power of Tom O'Brien's award-winning newsletter, Market Insights firsthand. T-F-N-N, educating investors. An investor should consider the investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses of the direction shares carefully before investing. The prospectus and summary prospectus contain this and other information about direction shares. To obtain a prospectus or summary prospectus, please contact direction shares at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The prospectus or summary prospectus should be read carefully before investing. An investment in the funds is subject to risk, including the possible loss of principal. The funds are designed to be utilized only by sophisticated investors such as traders and active investors. Distributor, Foreside Fund Services, LLC. This program is brought to you by Vista Gold, traded on the NYSC American and TSX under the symbol VGZ. Okay, I believe a lucky caller has gotten through how I don't know. Ronnie, are you there? You have somebody from Naples, Florida there today? Maybe Norm is chatting with him out in the parking lot. Who knows? Anyway, he had a question about natural gas, UNG. I believe this is the, what do you call it thing, the ETF for it. Anyway, if you'll notice here from your high down to your low, we are making a 382. We've made it in the futures market. Oh, that's not true. We had another 10 points to go. But here we are at 582. That's 12 cents from where we are right now. Big move up. So you'll notice that the bottom was a perfect 1.618 expansion of the move from the June high up till the August low right on the money. That's why those numbers of 1.618 are so very, very important. That's the last train from Boothill, folks. I don't know if you ever come to Tucson and go over to Tombstone, Arizona to see the OK Corral and the Jewish National Cemetery there, which is, that's what it is, Boothill, was a Jewish National Cemetery and it still is, it's maintained meticulously. If you want to have some fun, Google Tombstone and read the Tombstones themselves. My favorite is, here lies Lester Moore, shot four times with a 44. No less, no more. And there's so many of them that are like that that are really, really funny. Well, they're not funny if you were dying, but they're funny in history, I guess. Anyway, it's a cute, cute little place to be over there in Tucson. As a matter of fact, in 1865, when Tucson was founded, Tombstone was bigger than, Tombstone was bigger than Tucson and it was bigger than the city of Los Angeles. It didn't last very long because Los Angeles grew a little bit faster because Tombstone became a ghost town. Not many ghosts left. All right, let's take a look here, get back to where we want to be talking about. Evidently, I missed Ronnie on the phone there. Let me double check with TFNN. Yeah, we missed Ronnie. Sorry, Ronnie. I hope that helps you, but it looks like this is where UNG should stop. This is a 3-2 rally in a bear market, so I'd be really careful going along. You wait for a pullback if you want to be a buyer, but right now it doesn't appear to be something I'd want to own right now. Now, let's look at the Russell. This is one that's had a big run here. Look at the 61% retracement here. If you'll remember here, let's go back. If you remember at the October low, that's the low for everything. Then we had this move right here to the 50%. Then we go sideways and then course here is when the Dow Jones went wacko to the upside and it pulled everything up with it. Now, what's happened now is because this could be super bullies, folks. I'm trying to keep an open mind on this. I had a closed mind on here that was right away, but I didn't get the position that I wanted, but there's a number that you want to be watching here. Is this 3-8-2 off of this whole thing? How long it's going to take and if it's going to get here, but watch this because if it takes like six, seven, eight days or through the rest of this cycle period that ends on the 13th, I believe, let's check. It ends on the 13th Friday next week. Then we'll be looking at something that could be really, really spectacular to the upside. All I know is that volatility is going to be increasing. We've seen it already the first few days of the week. Fortunately, we got on the right side of a couple of these and that always helps. That's all you really need to do it is when you do that, get on the right side and then one of those puppies run and then you'll see what they can do and that's what you're looking for. Okay, now someone asked a question about the Japanese yen. Give me one second and we'll get this up here. Take a look at it. Oh, dear, I got to do it with the forex. This is correct. There it is right there. There's forex right here. Okay. And you'll see here we're getting that rally right off of that little three drive bottom. We pointed that out I think a couple days ago. We must have because there it is right on the chart and we've rallied from 44 to 41. How high is the rally going to go? Well, look, 382 didn't hold it. 61 didn't hold it, but 786 held it for a while. Then went below it. Now it's having a rally. We're having a bear market rally folks. That's what this is because you've got lower tops and lower bottoms. Since November, we're in a bear market. So you got to treat it as such. So you go up to your top level right here. Yes, Johnny, I got to click in here for you buddy. Keep waving that little card because where is it sitting at right now? Yes, boys and girls. You can't make this up. And honest to God, I just saw it for the first time. We're within five pips of the 382 retracement up here folks. So keep a close eye on this one. That's going to be one that I will be getting ready to sell here. It's the 62, yeah, 30 pips away is all it is. So pay close attention. Let's look at it with a bird's eye view so everybody can see it really clearly. There's the number we're looking at right here. There's the high that we were looking at right there. You put it in and you can see we is knocking on the door right now. There it's already hit it. So there's the number I would be selling the Japanese yen. Excuse me. I'd be selling US dollar against the Japanese yen going long in short dollar in here. And we will be looking at this tomorrow when we're on the air. And of course, Stan Harley will be our guest at the break here. And so anyway, that's what we're paying attention to here with this. And we have a question about the British Pound. Got a lot of people coming over from Britain to go to our seminar in Las Vegas, which will be a whole lot of fun and a lot of work. It's not, you know, it's actually, it's not supposed to be fun. It's supposed to, well, it is fun. It's supposed to be work, but it isn't. Okay. Here's the British Pound. Okay. Here's where we are at the British Pound. It's weaker. You can see it is weaker than the Alex. No, they're about the same. The doubt, there was a, it made, it didn't even get it went between the fifth to 61%. The 78 is what it did right there. Okay. All it did. We pointed this out before there was a smaller one, but there was another, another pattern right in here with the pound. There's your low right here. See that little four day correction. There's your AB leg. There's your CD leg right there. 128. And we went all the way down to 126. What have we done so far today? We're having a little two day rally. So being trained, watching cross rates, you go down to your 60 minute chart and see what it says. There's below this up so we can see it. There's our high way back here. Let's see if this was a 61% retracement. And it's only at the 50%. So you want to watch it. You want to get an ABCD folks. And there's not what not much looking at right here. Now there is a possibility of a ABCD coming in here with the pound from this level on the downside. In other words, just get hold this level here down about another 40 pips. So if you want to go along the pound, that's the place to look at it right there. Okay. Right in here around 126 35 someone at ballpark anywhere in this area with a stop right below there. That's what you could do. You can see on the way down, when the market broke to the downside, we always look for the first 382 retracement. I think it went to 50%. Probably went exactly to 50%. I can't tell you why it does that sometimes, but it'll go from 382 to 50%. If it gets above here, it's no good. Get out of dodge. But then you want to watch it because see after it comes down and makes a lower low, that means the next high is going to be pretty much, pretty much spot on another 50%. And look what you have here. 135 folks and there's where you get a big daddy rabbit. Can't be the end of the show.  We'll be right back boys and girls. If you're looking for potential trading setups in the stock market, then Rocket Equities & Options Report is a newsletter you should try. Tommy O'Brien delivers options and equity trades when the markets present them, using a combination of fundamentals and technicals. Sign up for Rocket Equities & Options Report today with a 30-day money-back guarantee so you have nothing to risk. For all the details and to start your subscription today, visit the front page of TFNN.com. TFNN Educating Investors. Everything in the universe is governed by the Fibonacci sequence. This mathematical principle is responsible for everything from the most aesthetically pleasing artwork to patterns in the stock market. To stay on top of stock patterns you can take advantage of, sign up for the Fibonacci 24-7 newsletter at TFNN.com. When you subscribe, you'll get a weekly report from Veteran Day Trader Larry Pezzavento on stocks you need to pay attention to and you can trust Larry's analysis. After all, he's got 45 years' experience as a day trader. Larry will also provide daily charts, videos and data on the key markets that he's tracking. Expect notifications from Larry on market movement you need to act on at any time. First-time subscribers also get a 30-day money-back guarantee. If you're not satisfied, let us know and you'll get a full refund within 30 days of signing up. Subscribe to the Fibonacci 24-7 newsletter today. TFNN.com Educating Investors. Introducing Tom O'Brien's award-winning newsletter, Market Insights, your key to successful active trading. Tom O'Brien, renowned for his expertise in the financial markets, has designed Market Insights to be your daily guide to profitable trades. Tom publishes his daily Market Insights newsletter every market day before the market open, along with updates when warranted. Stay ahead of the game with Tom's real-time analysis and trade recommendations delivered straight to your inbox.  Ready to join the ranks of successful traders? Head over to TFNN.com and subscribe to Market Insights today. Don't miss out on this opportunity to supercharge your trading results. Market Insights comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee for all new subscribers, so you have nothing to risk. Don't miss out on this opportunity to revolutionize your trading game. Head over to TFNN.com right now to join the thousands of traders who have already experienced the power of Tom O'Brien's award-winning newsletter, Market Insights firsthand. TFNN Educating Investors. TFNN has launched the Tiger's Den, hosted at Discord. TFNN has been educating traders for more than 20 years with live programming hosted by a variety of professional traders during market hours, the Tiger's Den, available to all tigers and tygruses for just $1 for the year. There's no catch or added costs when you join our community of traders. Sign up today to become a part of this educational community of traders. Just visit the front page of TFNN.com. Don't forget, you can listen to TFNN live on your mobile device 24 hours per day. Go to TFNN.com and hit Watch Tiger TV. That's TFNN.com. Then hit Watch Tiger TV. Okay, folks, now this is natural gas. I hope Mr. Ron down in Naples is listening, but this is the futures behind that UNG. But anyway, you'll notice the high was made back in November at $3.66. We came down in really nice format of ABCD style. There's your AB leg. There's your CD leg. Made the bottom down in here. Now we've made a retracement here. Now here again, just very simple. Let's just clean it out a little bit. We got to go quickly because we don't have a lot of time here, but you want to count the number of days up in the move here, the number of days up in the move here. Those are equal eight days up, eight days up. You want to see where the 3-8-2 retracement is going to come in here. And as you can see here, it came in here at $7.77. The high has been $85 and it's trading at $79. But that is an ABCD pattern. I'm going to draw it in so you'll be able to see it. But that's one we got to follow up for tomorrow because if you're going to sell it there, your buy stop has got to be right above here. You've got to risk $20 handles on that or $1,000 because it jumps around just like all the others. You can't get it too close, but it'd be close enough. This was really neat though. If you remember when this thing started down, it stopped at the 3-8-2s all the time. Look at that. Four days in a row, it stopped right at the 3-8-2. You've got to follow that, folks. That's a real moneymaker. So those are the things that we're paying attention to today. Tomorrow's guest will be Stan Harley, the Harley Stock Market Letter. I got great news. He's going to be back here in California in Arizona for the month of January and February. Part of January, part of February. So we're going to hang out and get some buddies together and tell stories. And they're always fun to listen to. Anyway, that's what we're paying attention to today. So live every day in an attitude of gratitude and may God bless. And do something kind for your neighbors, folks.


Hello, everyone. Welcome. I'm sorry, it's raining for heaven's sakes. So maybe we'll have more people on Zoom today. A couple things I wanted to mention. We have new leadership for Tripoli. This past summer, Mary McEwen was elected president by the board, and then she developed some health issues and had to step down. So this past Monday, the board re-elected me. So I'm still here. And Cindy Macken is the vice president. Where's Cindy? Oh, she's way in the back, in the dark. So she's vice president. Everybody else is still the same. A couple of things. You're going to be getting feedback forms via email, hopefully this weekend. We would love it if you would fill those out and send those back. Same format we've always used. We are planning programs already for the spring. So we would love to see your feedback. And there'll also be an email coming out a couple of events that we're planning for the fall or in winter by the end of December. So look for that on your email. So now I'd like to introduce Matt. So he knows my daughter at channel three. So I better shape up here. Matt Dickinson, now the way we found him is that a lot of you have heard Eric Davis at these lectures. And I called Eric and asked him if he would do it. He said, I'm not doing that anymore.  And guess, guess who? So that's how we found Matt. So the topic of his, he's going to speak the coming red tide forecasting the 2022 midterms. A little about him. He's professor of political science at Middlebury College. He received his PhD in government in 1992 from Harvard University, where he also taught as a professor until 2000. He has a blog. I won't give you the email, I mean the address now, but if you want it, see me afterwards and I will write it down for you. He hosts a weekly politics luncheon open to Vermont residents. He is author of Bitter Harvest, FDR, Presidential Power and the Growth of the Presidential Branch. That was in 1999. He's the co-editor of Guardian of the Presidency, the legacy of Richard E. Neustadt and has published numerous articles on the presidency, Congress and the executive branch. His current book manuscript titled, Clerk or Leader. The president and the White House staff, people, positions and processes 1945 to 2020 examines the growth of presidential staff in the post-world war two era. So please welcome him at this very opportune time. Matt. Thank you, Carol. Thank you, Cindy, somewhere, and thank you all for showing up. I'll help you know it's sunny in the rest of Vermont. It's literally the only place we're training, which is why we almost didn't find this. As Carol says, I teach at Middlebury College and at this time of year, can you hear me in the back there? Okay. I get trotted out, go around the state and other places to predict the outcome of midterm elections. Every two years they trot me out. I'm going to do that today. But I should warn you, my prediction is based on a lot of political science forecasting models. So what I do is sort of put them all together and then present the forecast. And you might ask, should we trust this guy? We've never seen him before. And so I'll just point out, and this is talks that I've made in previous years. The predictions are what I, this is for the house now, which is a lot easier to predict than the Senate. On the left hand is what I predicted, the number of seats and the actual house results. So, you know, that's not bad for government work. Of course, like stocks, past performance is no guarantee of future results. So with that caveat, let's plunge in. And let me also say, I'm going to try to do a hard stop here at about quarter three, because Carol says you guys get kicked out. They turn off the lights at three or something close that I would love to have your feedback and some questions on either this or anything having to do with politics. So I'm going to go through a lot of PowerPoints relatively quickly. If at any point you have a question, just stop me and I will try to clarify it. I also tend to roam on stage quite a bit. This isn't quite a stage and I see there's a camera on me. So I'm going to try to glue my hands here. But if the podium begins moving across, you'll know what's happening here. And again, I also try to predict the Senate. And the Senate is a lot harder to predict. There's fewer Senate seats up. You might think that makes it easier, but it actually is harder because they're much more idiosyncratic. Senate races are more competitive. Outcomes have much more to do with the candidates. The Senate voting public is much more heterogeneous. So I've done pretty well with the Senate, but this year is going to be, it's quite, it's quite a circus. All right. So the talk basically, I'll talk about the electoral context, what's at stake. Then I'll present something that comes as close to a law of political science that we have. That's the midterm loss phenomenon. I'll talk about a few developments like the abortion decision that might throw some of these forecasts off. Then I'll give you my forecast. Actually, I think I'll give you the forecast first. And then very briefly talk about the implications if these forecasts are accurate for Joe Biden's ability to govern going forward. So as you all know, every two years, every house seat, all 435 are up for election. Currently, the House Democrats have a slim majority. They occupy 2,219 seats. The Republicans, 2,211. There are some vacancies that make the calculation of how many seats the Republicans must gain to gain a majority somewhat uncertain here. But roughly they have to flip eight seats the other majority. That's not hard to do based on historical record here. The Senate, on the other hand, is tied 50-50. As you know, only a third of the Senate is up for election every two years. So we have 34 seats this year up for election Democrats defending 14 Senate seats, Republicans defending 20. This is the House map, 219 Democrats in blue, 2,211 Republicans in red. Of course, it looks like the Republicans dominate because our house seats must have the equal population. And in many of the democratically controlled seats, the population is quite densely located. Think about all those urban areas on the east and left, the east and the left coast, the west coast. And so that's why it looks like geographically the Republicans hold more territory they do. But population-wise, the Republicans are actually a minority. But this is going to come into play, this geographic distribution for reasons that I'll talk about in a moment. So remember this map. In the Senate, of course, the white Senate states, there are no Senate races up. The blue states are currently held by the Democrats, 14, the red 20 Republicans. And of course, again, that's a 50-50 map here. So any single state here is crucial to the outcome of control. But when we're talking about competitive Senate seats, there are really only about seven, or perhaps six that are competitive. Of those, the four, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, all currently have incumbents running for reelection. That's important because incumbents generally win reelection in Senate races about 85% of the time. And then there's a couple seats, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, where the current incumbent is stepping down. Those are open seats. Pennsylvania, possible pickup for Democrats. North Carolina, another possible pickup for Democrats. Then there's a couple of seats that I don't think are really in danger of flipping New Hampshire, Florida and Ohio. Ohio might surprise you. That's an open seat. Tim Ryan running against J.D. Vance. For reasons that I'll talk about, I think J.D. Vance has a pretty strong advantage in Ohio, a state that's been trending Republican. But here's what I really want you to focus on. This is called the midterm loss phenomenon. It is, there's three things in life that are certain death taxes and that the president's party loses seats in the midterm election. As you can see, that green are the three occurrences in which the president's party actually gained seats since 1934. In all the other races, the president's party lost seats. And so this would lead you to believe if you're a betting person that heading into the November elections, the Democrats are going to lose seats and most likely lose enough seats to lose their majority in the house. You might not know, but this phenomenon also affects the Senate. Now the Senate is a little more idiosyncratic. There's only been five instances, however, in which the president's party has gained seats in the midterm election in the Senate. So we have this midterm loss phenomenon that almost always strikes in the house and more often than not in the Senate. And the question is why? What explains this? And we are political scientists. We're not pundits. We profess to understand politics science. That's why we call it political science. And the science requires that theory and explanation and then evidence on whether that theory is right. So there are three theories or explanations for this midterm loss phenomenon. All three may come into play in November or maybe just one. I will briefly run through the intuition behind all of them. The first we call the surge and decline thesis, which points to the difference turnouts in presidential election years versus the midterm. The second is the midterm is a referendum on the president. And for reasons that we will discuss, typically the people who don't like what the president is doing are more likely to vote in the midterm than the people who like what the president is doing. And third, and this is particularly, I think pertinent to the current polarized era, Americans are largely centrist in views, but our elected representatives are much more polarized than our political activist class is much more polarized. And so the Americans in their wisdom don't trust either party to hold a majority for very long. Instead, they tend to balance off control of party. And right now, since the Democrats are in the majority, the balancing thesis tells us if enough Republicans can coordinate and Democrats as well, those who are dissatisfied with the Democratic party, they're going to vote for the Republican candidates to balance off control. So these are our three explanations. Is there evidence for any of them? Let's look at the surge and decline theory. The theory is quite simple. During a presidential election year, let's think 2020, we have a surge of voters, people who don't necessarily pay attention to politics on a daily basis, but they will vote in a presidential election. Note that turnout in the presidential election of eligible voters is roughly 60%. And then this additional surge of voters are people who are very responsive to the politics of the day. But what happens in the midterm 2022? A good chunk of those individuals are simply less interested in voting because once you get away from the presidential contest, they're not quite sure whether they're going to participate in a midterm. They often don't know who their representative is. And so they stay home. And that erases the majority party's advantage because proportionally, the people who stay home are more likely to become from the winning coalition in the presidential election year. So if you look at turnout, that blue line is presidential election year turnout. And if you look at the red line, that's midterm election turnout. You can see there's about a 20% difference between the two pretty consistently. So the surge in the presidential election year, that 60%, leads to a decline of turnout in the midterm, about 40%. And most of that decline is among the president's party. Therefore, in the midterm, president's party tends to lose support. How much? One way we estimate this is by looking at independence. Why independence? Independence are the individuals who are less committed to either party. They provide the change from election cycle to election cycle. They are growing in number in the United States. I'll talk about that a bit later. So they're much more responsive to the mood of the moment. They're the ones who give the president the winning candidate in the presidential election his margin of victory, usually. So in 2020, 94% of Republicans voted for Trump. 94% of Democrats voted for Biden. So what made the difference? It was the independence. Biden won them by about 51 to 43%, something like that. This is why it matters. We know for each percentage point advantage that the president had in the presidential election among independence alone since 1980, that predicts a loss of 2.2 house seats on average in the midterm. Because the independence don't vote in the midterm. And so all we have to do is look at the advantage Joe Biden had among independence in 2020 and multiply that by 2.2 and that'll give us our first ballpark estimate of the number of seats the Democrats are going to lose. So he won, according to Thomas Patterson from the Kennedy School of Government, a 14 point advantage among independence in 2020. Multiply by 2.2, that predicts a Republican gain of 31 seats this November, more than enough to regain the house. Remember, only need about eight to 11 seats to regain the house. Second theory, referendum theory. This is the one that says the midterm is a referendum on the president's performance in the previous two years. After taking office, presidents make a lot of choices. Joe Biden has made choices in infrastructure bill. If you go down the list of the negotiations he's had with Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema within his own party, he hasn't been very successful getting Republicans to support him. And these choices tend to produce more enemies than friends. Your people who are most passionate in the midterms tend to be people who are disappointed with what happened. And unfortunately for Joe Biden, his approval ratings, this is from real clear politics. So it's an aggregate. Each of those lines is an aggregate of multiple polls at any particular time. The red line is the number of Americans who disapprove of his performance. The black line is the number of Americans who approve of his performance. You can see until really the beginning of the fall, August beginning, September, his approval ratings had been steadily declining, his disapproval ratings steadily increasing. They've rebounded somewhat, and you can probably figure out a couple of the precipitating factors here. One, of course, is the passage of key legislation, the anti-inflation bill, which is inflationary, but never mind that. And the Supreme Court decision on abortion has given a temporary boost, and I emphasize temporary, to the Democrats. And so his approval ratings have come up a little bit. He's now at about 43 percent approval. That's about two percentage points higher than Donald Trump was at a similar point in his presidency. And it points to Democrats losing seats in this referendum. How much? Well, if you draw a line based on past elections dating back to 1980, that blue line is a regression line. It basically says what's the relationship between the president's popularity and the share of the other party's popular vote in the House now. We're just looking at the House. You can see if we go over to about where Biden's popularity is on the bottom, that X horizontal line, let's say he's at 43, 42 percentage points approval, you go up on that line and you look at the Y axis, the vertical axis there running from 46 to 56, it says the Republicans, the out party, are probably going to win about 53 to 54 percent of the popular vote. That is all the votes cast for all the 435 House seats. Now you say why does that matter? We don't elect the House based on the popular vote, but we can do a rough translation from the House popular vote to the number of seats they're going to win. Now you might say, well, if you win 53 percent of the popular votes, you're going to win 53 percent of the House seats, but no, you're going to win more than that. And that's because of the peculiarities of the American political system, it's winner take all. So unlike hand grades or bowling, you don't get points for being a close second or horseshoes.  You don't win the House seat. It always goes to the person who gets the most popular votes in that district. If you add that all up over time, it leads to a bias in which the party's candidates who are winning the most popular votes are actually going to win a greater proportion of seats in the House. How much greater? Well, if you look at this chart, these jagged lines represent the sheet, the seats one in each election over the proportion of popular vote. So if there was zero, if it was exactly the same, there was no difference between the proportion of seats and the proportion of your popular vote in the aggregate. It would be down at the bottom as zero, but it's never down at the bottom. It's always higher. That is, you always win more seats proportionally than your party wins popular votes. How much more on average between four and six percent more seats than your popular vote? So again, extrapolating from history, if you're going to win 53 percent of the popular vote, you're going to win between 57 and close to 60 percent of the seats in the House. So just to do the math very carefully, keep in mind now, I pointed out this map earlier, and this is where this comes into play as well, the Republicans are more efficiently distributed. That is, Republicans hold more seats in which their margin of victory is quite small over the Democrats, whereas Democrats hold more seats in which their margin of victory is huge over the Republicans.  She won her last election with about 85 percent of the vote. There's no Republicans in New York City, for the most part, but a lot of Republicans are winning in areas in which it's pretty evenly divided. What does this mean? It means Democrats are wasting votes, a lot of their popular vote because you don't get extra seats within a district just because you won 80 to 20 as opposed to 51-49. So two factors are working against Democrats here. One is what I talked about earlier, this structural result of the single-member simple plurality voting system, and two, the inefficiency with which Democrats are distributed. What does that mean? For example, in 2014, the Democrats won a House seat for every 189,000 votes they won in a district. Districts right now are roughly 700,000 people. The Republicans, by contrast, only had to win 162,000 votes to win the seat, so that is a structural advantage favoring Republicans. They win more seats based on the same amount of popular votes. In other words, if as many people vote in 2022 as did in 2014, the Democrats need to win about 5.3 million more votes than the Republicans just to break even. And they're not going to do that, we don't think. So let's make it very simple. If the Republicans win 53% of the popular vote, adding up all the votes in all 435 House races, 53% of it goes through Republicans, they're going to pick up based on past performance about 35 seats, according to this model. So we've got two forecasts here based on slightly different theories, but we're not done. There's a third theory, we call this the balancing theory. Now, this theory is not going to give me an exact number of seats of prediction. And why do we balance? Well, there's different explanations. We're balancing because we think power corrupts in absolute power, corrupts absolutely. So the worst thing you can have is one party in control of the House, the Senate and the presidency. We also think as both parties have become increasingly internally homogenous, ideologically speaking, Democrats are all really tree hugging eco-terrorist, pre-estriving secular humanists, right?  You get the point. Normal people like you and I can't stand either of these parties. And so we're just going to balance them off. And then there's an institutional explanation that says when we vote for the presidency, we're looking for different qualities than when we vote for Congress. And so we vote differently in the presidential election year, where the top of the ticket drives our vote than we do in the midterm election year. All of these explanations may come into play. The point is we expect a balance coming up in 2022. And with the Democrats holding majorities, the balance is going to favor the Republicans in some form. And just to give you a sense of how polarized we are today, this red line represents the House. This blue line represents the Senate. It goes back to the 1880s. That is the post-Civil War reconstruction. And what this, these lines are measuring is that if you basically look at each member of the Senate and the House's voting record, and you assign them an ideological score. So Bernie Sanders score is negative 12. He's somewhere left of Mao Taisung, right? And you look at somebody like Rand Paul, who's somewhere right of Genghis Khan. And you array everybody there, and then you just take the median member, okay, where's the median score for all the Democrats in the House and the Senate and the median for all the Republicans. And you say, how far apart are those medians? And that'll give us a measure of how polarized the chambers are. And graph it, that's what we have here. The higher the point, the more polarized the two parties are. Look at us now. We are more polarized in the Senate and the House than we have been since the Civil War. That's how bad things are right now in terms of polarization in our Congress. And so that balancing calculus really comes into play here, because the public is nowhere near either of these parties in general. Now, the political activists are, but Jane and Joe Sixpack, normal people who don't really live and die by what they see on cable television is we're much more moderate. We have a mix of views, some conservative, some liberal, but we're not purists by any sense of the word. And one of the things we know when we look at polling about how voters say they're going to vote heading into the midterm. And if you track that polling in the weeks before the midterm, it's the out party that gains support. The out party tends to become increasingly more popular. And that's because of this balancing, as people begin to pay attention to the race and they say, who's in charge now? I think I'm going to vote for the other party. Not everybody does that, but enough to sort of lead to this balancing. We don't know how that translates into seats, but let me just show you this. If you think about the majorities in the House, in the Senate, in which party controls the White House, you really can only have eight configurations. You can have all Democrats, you can have all Republicans, you can have some mix of Republican president and a divided House and Senate or Democratic president and Republican House and Senate. There's eight possible permutations. Well, since 2001, the beginning of this century, we've cycled through every single permutation except one. The only one we haven't had is a Democratic president, a Republican Senate in a Democratic House. And we came within a whisker of doing that in 2020. If Donald Trump had not scared the Republican voters in Georgia in the special election by saying your vote isn't going to count, and we know in doing that a lot of Republicans didn't vote in those special elections, those Senate seats would have gone Republican in Georgia and we would have had a Republican-controlled Senate. In other words, Americans aren't satisfied with any configuration of control since really the beginning of this century. And they just keep cycling through saying, whatever you've given us after two years, we don't like it. And we're trying something else. And so if you have a Democratic majority right now, we can't get rid of Joe Biden. I don't think. And so we're going to have to change control of the House and the Senate. So this leads again to the prediction. Since the disputed 2000 election, we've experienced seven of the eight possible configurations of partisan control. No single configuration has lasted a full presidential term. We essentially are being governed by minority parties. There is no majority party. We've had no landslide presidential election since Ronald Reagan. We are in a period in which the majority of Americans do not like either party enough to give them control. It's just the nature of where we are. And an additional measure of that, when we ask people, do you identify as a Republican, a Democrat, or independent, the percentage of people saying independence now is the largest it's been since we've been asking that question. It's over 40%. So it's all reasons to think voters are going to reject the Democrats this fall in some form or fashion due to this balancing theory. All right. Let's summarize what we got here. Surgeon decline says pick up 35 seats for Republicans. Referendum on Biden 32% seats for Republicans. Balancing model, no clear seat prediction, but clearly the Democrats will lose their House majority and perhaps the Senate majority. I'm going to get to the Senate in a moment. Now, there's a lot more forecast models out there. Political scientists love their forecast models. I'm not going to run you through more of them, a couple more based on looking at presidential approval. So that would be the referendum model plus disposable income. It's a measure of how Americans are doing in terms of the economy. That predicts the Democrats are going to lose 44 seats. Another model which looks at the number of seats that are competitive and based on past history looking at the number of seats that are competitive. The prediction is Democrats are going to lose 42 seats. So all of these models are forecasting a loss of the Democrats seats from anywhere to 31, what was it exactly there? 32 all the way up to 44.   And so you immediately say, what happens in the Senate? Please Lord, let us hold the Senate.  And I don't presume you are all Democrats. There is a voice out there, a voice in the wilderness of political scientists who says, wait a minute, there's another model here. And this model suggests the Democrats might be saved. And they might be saved because history is not going to work exactly as it has in this fall because additional factors are coming into play here. And the most important one is we're losing competitive seats, seats in which it's actually possible for the out candidates to win. The incumbency factor has always been strong in House races. When incumbents run for re-election, they win about 95% of the time in the House. But they may even win at a higher rate in this cycle. And the reason is because there are fewer and fewer seats that are considered competitive. And I'll talk about why that is. But when you think about landslide, or as I called it, wave elections, the red tide, in the past, they usually took place when there were many more competitive seats. And usually because one party had a huge majority. And then then their majority was wiped out. In this current environment, neither party has a huge majority. So for, excuse me, in 2010, when the Obama and Democrats underwent that shellacking, do you remember that? In 2010, Democrats lost 54 seats. Well, they had a 79 seat advantage at that time in the House. And so it enabled the GOP. Actually, that number is wrong. It was less than that. But the point is they had a huge majority. They do not have a huge majority now. And Alan Mbramowicz, a political scientist down in Emory, has actually looked at the history and he's created his own forecast model. And that model is based on two criteria. One is how big an advantage does the majority party have? So the Democratic Party now has an advantage of roughly 11 seats. And then the second measure is we go out and we ask voters, are you going to vote in the House election? And if so, will you vote for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate? And we just call that something called the generic ballot question, because we don't ask them the candidate's names, because most voters don't know who the candidates are. They just know I'm going to vote Democrat or Republican. And if you factor that in and look at past performance, you can predict based just on the current generic ballot and knowing the Democrats have 11 seat majority, what the outcome is going to be this November. And so these are all the past predictions and the actual results. That line would be the predicted seat change in previous House elections based on this model from 1946 to 2018. And you can see it more or less does a pretty good job predicting where the actual outcome is. So what does that model predict here? Well, here's the generic ballot. You can see it's been fluctuating, but I just looked this up today. So when we ask a survey of Americans, are you going to vote for the Republican candidate for the House or the Democrat? A slight, slight plurality, say the Republican, it's less than a percent. So it's really close, the generic ballot. And if we plug that into his model, the difference between the Democratic percentage and the Republican percentage that's in that first column will lead to a prediction of how many seats the Democrats will lose. So we're just between zero and negative five in the generic ballot. We're closer to zero. What does that predict? Yeah, really just only a loss of maybe 15 to 20 seats. So this model still has the House flipping, but by a lot less.  It might just be a trickle, but you're still going to lose it. Okay, is there anything that could upset these predictions very quickly? These are the issues that people usually talk about, the pundits. I'm not going to spend a lot of time here because I want to make sure I leave you time for questions. Let me just briefly remind you this is 2022. So it's the first election after we redrew congressional lines. You know, we do that every 10 years. US Census is taken. The population in each House district might shift. We have to redraw those district lines. That is a political process. It's done by the state legislatures or neutral redistricting. Parties actively try to use this process, which we call gerrymandering, to ensure their own members will win reelection and the other parties members won't. This is the first election since that happened, so that may make some of our forecasts slightly off. I'll talk about that in a moment. Generally speaking, if we estimate the impact of gerrymandering, the redrawing of lines after 2020 census, we think the districts that went Democratic voted for Joe Biden, we think Democrats have picked up one more. They're now at 188 districts that lean Democrat. The Republicans picked up 10 more as a result of redrawing lines. There's probably 168 districts that are now strong Trump. Most importantly, the number of competitive districts has declined by 11. This is a long-term trend. Of course, the definition of competitive varies. Based on this measure, the number of competitive seats, one defined as one in which the presidential candidate in the prior election were within 5 percentage points in that district. We only have about 40 competitive districts in 2022. And again, that's the Ambrama Woods model. So gerrymandering may limit the scope of the Republican wave here because a lot of districts, it doesn't matter how strong that wave is. They're just not competitive. The incumbent or the incumbents party, just because of the way that the lines have been drawn, there's just so many partisans in that district. It's going to be very difficult for the opposition party to take that. One way to think about that is just look at the map. And those gray, or I don't know what color that is, in the middle there, those are the districts that are viewed as pure toss-ups. There's just not a lot of them, if you can see in the house here. It's also the case, of course. We want to look at, we know partisanship is the most important predictor. So what's the relative proportion of individuals calling themselves Republicans or Democrats? Throughout 2021, the percentage calling themselves Republicans was trending up. Republicans, sorry, Democrats trending down. But note, the biggest gainer, independence. That's the current breakdown as of July. I haven't been able to update this. 41% say they are independent, 29% Democrats, 28% Republicans. When you force people to choose a party, they say, okay, I'm a Republican or a Democrat. But if you give them the choice of, or maybe you're an independent, a lot of Democrat and Republican leaners say, no, I'm actually an independent. Why does that matter? They're less likely to vote in the midterm than they were in the presidential election year. Okay. The other thing we look at is enthusiasm. We have been looking here at seat changes as a function of these factors, but turnout matters. You got to get your people to the polls. And one way we predict turnout is looking at enthusiasm. And right now, the enthusiasm for voting in the midterms is pretty close. I wasn't able to get an accurate number as of October. So I'm going to give you a summer number. But if you look in previous years, you can see, for instance, in 2010, that was the shellacking in which the Republicans gained 60-some seats. You can see the enthusiasm gap was huge. Similarly, in 2018, the Democrats had a slight advantage in the enthusiasm gap. They happened to regain a house that year. So the enthusiasm gap is pretty much a good predictor. If you're looking past years, when there's been a huge gap in enthusiasm, that's when we most likely to see a shellacking. So on the right-hand side is the enthusiasm gap, which party it favors. The left-hand side on the bar here is the change in seats. There's a rough correlation. Where's the enthusiasm gap today? Eh, favors the Republicans by about 3%, but I have seen more recent polls that suggest that it's tightened even more. So not a huge advantage for either party here in terms of the enthusiasm gap. I haven't said very much about issues. Don't issues matter. Yes, issues matter. Most importantly, we know the economy. Biggest impact on, in fact, I showed you a forecast model that looked at the change in disposable income as one of its influences. I haven't said much about the economy because, to a certain extent, Joe Biden's approval ratings reflect the state of the economy. The more you think the economy is going bad, the lower his approval ratings are. So just by measuring his approval ratings, we're kind of taking into account the economy. There are other issues, of course, most notably the abortion issue. That, ruling by the Supreme Court, gave a slight boost for Democrats, but it is waning right now. The impact of that is receding as I speak, as other issues come into play here. So let's look at the economic measures. I don't have to tell you that inflation is at the highest since it's been 1981. It's not going to help the Democrats. The consumer confidence is dropping. It's dropping to levels not seen since the last recession. There are indications that we are heading into a potential economic recession. Again, not helping Democrats. If we think about members who are stepping down, members are very strategic. When members decide not to run for reelection, it's usually because they think they're going to lose, possibly because the national circumstances are against them. Well, who's stepping down? 22 Democrats compared to 10 Republicans have decided not to run for reelection. Another indication that they can see this upcoming tide coming in. So we might think that abortion is going to rescue the Democrats, and we know the number of individuals who favor legal abortion for any reason is gone up, and the Supreme Court decision is not very popular because of that support for abortion rights. But if you drill down more deeply, Americans are quite nuanced in their views on abortion. If you ask Americans, are you pro-choice or pro-life, a slight majority will say we're pro-choice, and that's pretty consistent. But most Americans are not purely pro-choice or pro-life at all. They are right in the middle. They want abortion to be safe and legal up to a certain point. And that point is somewhere around fetal liability, and then they are in favor of restrictions on abortion rights. And so the idea of the Supreme Court throwing that decision back to the states, it really matters which state you're in about whether that decision is going to have political consequences or not. And so I think the media has been overstating the impact of the abortion issue on the midterms. I think it's going to have much smaller impact than you might think, and not always in the direction you might think. The other thing to keep in mind is we often think about abortion in terms, it's a woman's issue, and it's driving women to the polling booth, and they're going to vote Democratic. In fact, when you ask individuals whether they are supportive of abortion rights or not, historically men are slightly more supportive than women. Not by a lot now. I don't want to overstate this. And it sometimes varies. Women are slightly more. But the point is in terms of its political impact, this isn't quote unquote a woman's issue in terms of how it's going to affect the vote, since so many men about equal to the number of women are quote unquote pro-choice. So when you look a lot of these stories about women, the boost in registration, that's not telling you the whole story about the impact of abortion. So just the caveat there. All right. Well, that's about it. Let me do the Senate very quickly. Bear with me. Again, this is the Senate map. We know 20 Republican-controlled Senate seats are up, 14 Democrats. That generic ballot model, you can apply that to the Senate. And it says the Democrats are probably going to gain a seat or maybe it's no change at all. So we're looking very close in the Senate. So let's look at some individual races. And again, remember, just like in the House, the Senate races have become increasingly non-competitive. This is the number of Senate races in a particular state that trend the same way as the presidential election in that state. And you can see as the state goes in the presidential election, so it goes in the Senate race. So we're not going to see a lot of change in the midterm here. When you think about the Senate delegations that are split, that's the gray one at the top. We're at the lowest number of split Senate delegations we've ever had. All a long way of saying there's not a lot of Senate races that are competitive. If you are a Democrat, however, you have to be pleased with the set of characters the Republicans have put up in some of these Senate seats. And again, I'm not in Georgia. I'm not in Pennsylvania. I'm not in Arizona. That's Brookmaster, Blakemaster, sorry, at the top, Herschel Walker, bottom right, Mehmet Oz. I don't mean to disparage their candidacies, but they're an odd group, and they're a controversial group. And it's unclear to me that these are the strongest candidates that the Republicans could have put up. So you do as a Democrat hope that the Republicans are snatching the feet from the jaws of victory here by running these candidates. Having said that, I'm going to tell you as I make my forecast, my forecast has changed since the last speech I gave on this at some other place. And the reason it's changed is because see these characters, they're all actually tightening the race. All three of these Republicans are actually gaining ground on the Democrats. I didn't think that was going to happen, but it is happening. It's not clear they're gaining enough to win, but they are making these races a lot closer. And that's consistent with what I told you. As you go from the beginning of an election year towards November, the out party tends to gain support. It's happening in Pennsylvania. It's happening in Arizona. It's happening in Georgia right now. Will they gain enough to flip it? Hard to tell. All right. So I'm going to give you my forecast. And I'm going to warn normally my forecast, I just averaged together the political science models and say that's my forecast. I'm cheating this year. And so those of you who came here and you've got your grandson's tuition money and you're going to bet on the outcome of this, don't do it. I am giving the Republicans a gain of 28 seats, which is lower than most of the models are predicting and I think is probably lower than what's going to happen. Again, I made this prediction about a month ago, so it's now public record. Since I made it, I think actually the Republicans chances have gone up to gain a few more seats. The Senate, I'm thinking it's going to be a 50-50 split here. The Republicans will win five of these toss-up states, but of those five, only one will be a pickup. That'll be Nevada, where Adam Laxalt is the son of the Laxalt family is pulling ahead of the incumbent there, Mastro. The Democrats, I think, will pick up four, but only one will be flipped and that'll be Pennsylvania. I'm looking at Federman holding on in Pennsylvania over Mehmet Oz. That means the Senate will remain 50-50 and assuming they can hold together, that will give Joe Biden a working advantage.  That gives you control over court appointments, for instance, nominations. Assume you can hold that together. Forget that. Consequences. Let's assume Biden loses his House majority and potentially the Senate. It matters. We saw it with Barack Obama when he lost his majority. We saw it with Donald Trump when he lost his majority. We saw it with George W. Bush when he lost his majority. We saw it with Bill Clinton when he lost his majority. In each case, their ability to pass legislation declined precipitously and they had to rely on administrative. So here is the percentage of bills passed by Congress backed by the president. On the top, when the president's party is in the majority, 83% of the bills are passed. On the bottom, when one or both houses are controlled by the majority, the percentage drops to 56%. This is Trump's legislative success rate from his first two years to his last two years. Dropped from over 90%, relying on Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan in the House to getting almost nothing through the democratically controlled Congress. Same with Obama. 96% in his first year, 88% in his second, dropped to 56% after the shellacking, the Republican regaining the House in 2010. The only other thing I would tell you if the Democrats lose the House, you're saying, oh, what does this mean for the presidential election? It means nothing. Presidential elections are a whole other beast. You can invite me back and I will give my presidential election forecast. I'm much better at presidential elections. But half the time, the winner of the midterm has won the presidency. Half the time, they have not. Okay. Let me stop there. Open it up for questions. If you have any. Thank you. That was great. Okay. Any questions on Zoom? No questions on Zoom. Come on, people. If you haven't been zooming before. So if they have, if you haven't, don't have any questions on Zoom, please think of some. Oh, good. We have some live people. Is it just me or has the accuracy of polling declined in the last 10 or so years? It is not just you. The question for those of you who might not have heard it was, has the accuracy of polling declined in the past 10 years? It has. There are a couple of reasons for that. So for instance, in 2016, you'll recall heading into the presidential election, it appeared based on polls that Hillary Clinton was going to win. And when you looked at state level polls in particular, it appeared that she had more than enough for an electoral college majority, but it turned out in several states, the polls understated Donald Trump's support. And the reason it understated, we think it's a combination of several factors. The most important one is the turnout among individuals with a high school education or less. When you poll a state, you're taking a representative sample of who you think the voting public is going to be. Well, almost in all of those states, particularly in the Midwest, Rust Belt states, like Michigan, Wisconsin, that flipped from Barack supporting Obama in 2012 to supporting Clinton, the polls did not estimate the number of lower educated voters that came out and turned out in favor of Trump. And so they were completely wrong. However, if you were smart and you went to one of Dickinson's talk, and he gave you a forecast model, remember our forecast models are not based on polls. That's the great thing about our forecast models. They're based on factors that I would have told you that Hillary Clinton was going to win the popular vote with about 51.5% vote, which by the way, was exactly right. Now, there was that other part of the equation, which as I said, and therefore should be the next president of the United States, which turned out to be slightly wrong, but never mind that. That's not theoretically very interesting, the fact that I predicted she'd be the president and she wasn't. The point is, I understood the popular vote. Now, normally you don't get a split between the popular vote and electoral college vote and we forget we think of 2016 as this huge upset and how could Donald Trump have won, but it really wasn't. He got about the share of the popular vote we thought he'd get. It's just that he managed to, it was as if he drew a straight flush. If you shifted 40,000 votes, which is less than one-tenth of 1% of the total votes and you move them a few miles across state lines, Hillary Clinton would have been president and nobody would have ever heard of Donald Trump ever again. So, one of the oddities of our presidential selection system is in a winner-take-all system in which the winner of the popular vote in each state gets all its electoral college votes, the location of the vote matters a lot. That's a long answer, but your intuition is right. Polling has become more difficult because the composition of voting has been off based on what pollsters thought. A lot of people have cell phones and the random sampling of cell phones wasn't allowed under federal regulations and if you just called people on landlines, you're getting a lot of older people.  And the other factor is people just aren't answering the phone anymore. I mean, I don't know about you, but before I left this morning, I got 15 calls, random calls from people trying to sell me things. I don't even answer the phone. If you're a pollster, you've got to call more and more people and it gets increasingly expensive and so there's a lot of polls on the cheap. So what pollsters are now doing is they're going online and they're asking people to answer surveys online, but it becomes complicated there because the people who are willing to do it, they're not representative of normal people. They're more politically active, so you've got to balance it off. So yeah, you're right. Polling has become more difficult. I would take polling with a grain of salt heading into 2022. Again, it is not that people are putting their fingers on the polls. Most reputable pollsters are doing the best they can. It's just hard. It's a lot harder. So I have a question and you almost answered it. Do you think the Democrats have waked up since they stayed home and didn't vote for Hillary? Well, so again, there is some debate about whether they stayed home and didn't vote for Hillary. She got roughly 100,000 votes less than Obama. That's a drop in the bucket. In other words, the coalition that supported Obama came out for her. The biggest problem she had was that drop was disproportionately among voters of color. And that meant in some of these swing states, particularly among Latinos, she lost support. And in fact, Joe Biden, heading into the 2020 election, lost more support. Of the four years of Trump, we saw a shift of voters of color from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. So my worry as a Democrat, it's not total turnout. It's who's turning out. The Democratic Coalition is increasingly becoming wider. It is becoming more affluent. And it's losing working class voters, particularly working class voters of color. Now, if that continues, the Democrats are going to be in trouble. So as Democrats, you got to think about not just the total turnout, but how can I regain some of those working class voters that are that I've been losing? And I think that's the worry Democrats have going ahead. Regarding October surprises, what if Putin actually followed through on his threat to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine? How would that? Great question. What I would say is the question was, what if Putin uses nuclear weapons or something happens in Ukraine? How would that affect the midterms? So you remember that chart where I talked about the exceptions to the midterm loss phenomenon? One was 2002. What happened? Prior to that, 9-11. The other one was 1998. Do you remember what happened then? I got two words for you. Monica and Lowinsky. There was an impeachment of the president. So history suggests if something of that magnitude, an impeachment or a terrorist attack or the use of nuclear weapons, all bets are off. And my guess is there'll be a rally around the flag effect. If again, again, it depends on, you know, what's the impact of those nuclear weapons? Does it affect the United States? And if so, how? But I think that would probably boost the Democratic support. I'm guessing here it depends on the nature of the impact. We have a couple of Zoom questions. What is the influence of Fox News on elections? Not much. Again, people overestimate the number of individuals watching Fox News, Fox News gets maybe three to four million viewers. We had 170 million people voting in the presidential election. The people who watch Fox News, their views are really baked in. It has very little impact in terms of elections. It's about similar to MSNBC, slightly smaller audience, but the people who watch MSNBC are, again, I caricature them, but they're, you know, the tree-hugging eco-terrorists. The people watching Fox News, they're the goose-stepping, yes, you, they're the goose-stepping neo-Nazis. They are activists. And one of the things I caution you, never draw conclusions about the status of American public opinion on politics by watching cable news. But yes, they have on, aren't representative of the views of most Americans. The issues that they talk about are not what most Americans are concerned about. It's an entirely misleading picture. And we tend to overemphasize the importance of those views that are being expressed in terms of understanding American politics. They are completely misleading. They give you the sense that Americans are deeply polarized and they talk past each other and they can't even agree on facts. That's not true. Americans are mostly centrist. They hold a mix of what we might call Republican and Democratic views. And they share much more in common than what divides them. I have a whole nother talk on that issue. I think that we are shutting down, but Matt might stay a little longer for some additional questions. Yes. Thank you, Matt. Yay.


Spotfires can start well ahead of the firefront, threatening lives within minutes. Don't wait to be told to leave as it might be too late. The reasons why are black and white.