Thoughtout 2020, the price of oil has been uneasy, with demand weakened dramatically by the coronavirus pandemic. Too much supply, not enough demand, and the price goes down. The US has been struggling to keep the price up, by keeping global supply limited.
The upcoming election could dramatically change all of that. Former Vice President Joe Biden is up in the polls. There is a very real possibility that he will win the election, and turn the US to the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran.
If the US returns to the nuclear deal, and starts complying with it, this would open Iran’s 3.8 million barrels of daily production to the open market. The sales of a meaningful several percent of world’s oil output could drag prices down, possibly dramatically.
The US would likely try to pressure OPEC for more cuts to avoid price volatility, but that’s easier said than done. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) suggested Biden should go for a “tougher” Iran deal, which might be done to delay putting the oil back on the open market.
After the US dishonored the first deal, a new tougher deal would be a tough sell, to say the least. That may be the point, however, allowing the US to give lip service to scrapping Trump’s policy but remaining every bit as intransigent.
Biden promised back in September that he would offer to rejoin the deal if Iran returns to compliance. This may be a campaign promise he’ll be pressured not to keep by hostile members of Congress from both parties.
It’s an odd bit of political tension.
On one hand, US politicians are beholden to the oil industry and do their damnedest to keep oil prices high — especially for purposes of providing an effective subsidy to US shale producers, who can’t compete with old-style drilling at market prices.
On the other hand, any politician who is honest about that — “yes, I want to make sure you pay as much as possible for gasoline” — isn’t likely to spend much time in office.
Which means that the politicians have to come up with excuses — for example, “Iran as state sponsor of terrorism, we can’t let them sell that oil or they’ll spend the money on pipe bombs to leave in your mailbox” — for the actions they take to keep the price up.
Thomas, the low gas prices have been better for the common citizen than any tax cut dreamed up by the DC GHOULS.
Yes, low gas prices are good for the common citizen.
And Trump has busted his ass trying to drive them up.
Thomas, that is actually correct, a good example of his having his head, often, up his AZZ! 🙂
Biden will not go back to the original nuke deal. He’s a proud Zionist and Israel will not approve any return to the JCPOA.
Besides, the entire Congress supports the US being a handmaiden of the Jewish Only State.
It would also destroy the EV industry and set back green effort. But, you’re right, Israel first.
Solly,,O Yeah!!,,Right on!!
OPEC can’t discipline themselves, so they’d much prefer continuing to discipline the US into continuing to discipline Iran over rules Iran isn’t violating.
No. 1 polls are as bad as they were in 16 so Trump is gonna get reelected possibly by a bigger EC margin. No. 2 by the greatest stroke of luck (or rampant vote fraud) Sleepy Joe does win don’t count on policy to change significantly. He’s a lifelong hardcore zionist and ultra supporter of Israel.
Any particular evidence for claim No. 1?
Every other trend and indicator favors Trump. GOP registration surging in swing states since this summer. Trump has a huge enthusiasm gap over Biden and the candidate with the enthusiasm advantage has always won the election. The primary model from Helmut Norpoth which has predicted all but two presidential elections correctly since 1912 has Trump with a 91% chance of victory. If an incumbent gets 75% or more of votes in the primaries they’re favored to win reelection and Trump got 95% of party primary votes which is rock solid. Joe Biden was almost dead last in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries and is a worse candidate than Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney put together.
What reason should I believe these polls when they’ve been garbage for the last several election cycles? They’re intended to shape public opinion not get a snapshot.
The few polls that have been accurate like Trafalgar and Democracy Institute get shunted and smeared by the election mafia dons like Nate Silver of 538 and Nate Cohn.
I’ll have to look into the Democracy Institute.
In 2016, Trafalgar predicted a Trump win of 2% in Michigan. That was nearly seven times what he actually won by.
I also predicted a Trump win in Michigan (and in Ohio, Pennslyvania, and Florida — the two states I missed were Wisconsin and Iowa) in 2016, and I predicted those wins six months out, based on a model that included the same “shy Trump voter” hypothesis Trafalgar used.
They don’t appear to have changed their poll-data-massaging model to account for a couple of facts on the ground.
One is that the “shy Trump voter” phenomenon is almost certainly WAY down from 2016. In 2016, Trump was an underdog who few people expected to win. In 2020, he’s the incumbent president of the United States. The “shy Trump voters” of 2016 have mostly either become far less shy (because they believe he’s performed so as to vindicate their position) or have become non-Trump voters (because they believe he hasn’t).
Another is the nature of incumbency itself. Undecided voters tend to end up going for the challenging party, not the incumbent party, in presidential elections. If they liked the incumbent, they wouldn’t be undecided.
A third is that the third party vote is going to be considerably diminished this year, and the temporary third party voters going back to a major party are probably going to heavily favor the Democrats. Third party voters who “leaned Trump” between major party candidates in 2016 got to cast their third party vote and have things come out the way they liked anyway. Third party voters who “leaned Clinton” between major party candidate in 2016 have spent the last four years kicking themselves for “costing” their candidate the election. As an exercise, have a look at states where Trump won by less than 5%, and the third party vote topped 5%, in 2016. If he’s less than 3% ahead in those states, he’s not going to win those states this time.
A fourth is that in 2016, pollsters tended to not reach rural voters who didn’t usually vote but who were enthused by Trump very well. They polled “likely voters,” i.e. those who had voted in recent elections. THIS year, Trump’s 2016 voters ARE “likely voters” for the mainline pollsters.
My model in 2016 for my final state-by-state prediction said “in any state where Clinton is ahead by less than 5%, she’s in deep shit.” This year, that model says exactly the same thing about Trump.
Here’s my prediction for 2020, complete with state map. In 2012, I predicted 48 states and got them all right. In 2020, I predicted 50 states and got 48 of them right. I’m looking forward to seeing how well I do this year.
I think your analysis is very flawed. There are many fundamentals favoring Trump such as the antifa/BLM rioting which especially factors in the rustbelt states. Trump blows Biden away in enthusiasm and the candidate with enthusiasm advantage has always prevailed in the modern era. And numerous other factors like the Hunter Biden laptop and emails. But to each his own.
You may be right. I guess we’ll see. I don’t have a lot invested in the outcome of the election, other than a reputation I’m developing for doing fairly well at predicting outcomes. And if that reputation takes a hit, I’ll try to learn from whatever mistakes I made.
Fair enough.